Burma: Human Rights

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to reports of continuing violations of human rights of ethnic national groups in Burma by the State Peace and Development Council.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Burma and, in particular, that affecting ethnic groups. The UK co-sponsored a widely supported resolution at the UN Commission on Human Rights on 21 April that condemned human rights violations suffered by ethnic groups in Burma. We fully support the efforts of Sergio Pinheiro, the UN special rapporteur for human rights in Burma, and have called on the SPDC to co-operate fully with him and allow him to visit Burma regularly.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which gives considerable encouragement to the ethnic national groups. However, is she aware that, in two recent visits, I have seen the plight of many thousands of people from those ethnic national groups, such as the Karen, the Karenni, the Shan and the Chin peoples? They are forced to hide in the jungle with no access to shelter, medical care or food, having been forced to flee from their villages because of continuing atrocities by government soldiers, such as torture, rape, murder and forced labour. Can the noble Baroness say whether Her Majesty's Government will consult those ethnic groups with a view to providing humanitarian assistance to those internally displaced people, who are suffering and dying with no aid whatever?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am particularly aware of what is happening to these ethnic groups because I have read the noble Baroness's report, which she kindly circulated following her most recent visit. A terrible situation is, indeed, affecting the Karen and Karenni. Approximately 140,000 refugees—mostly Karen and Karenni—are living in camps on the Thai/Burmese border and many more—up to 1 million, I understand—are living as illegal immigrants in Thailand.
	We are the largest EU donor of humanitarian assistance to Burma, and we want to ensure that any humanitarian assistance is properly targeted. One problem that we have at present is that of entering the areas to ensure that any money that is donated particularly to those groups goes where it is intended. I take the noble Baroness's point that these groups are in particular need, but I hope she will also understand our concern that it should be made absolutely clear that money meant for those groups reaches them. That is why my opening Answer placed so much emphasis on ensuring that the UN rapporteur accesses the right areas, as that will enable us to obtain a clearer picture. I hope that there will be a developing dialogue on this issue.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that none of the three bodies charged with reconvening the national conference, which was adjourned in 1996 and is due to meet for the first time on Monday, contains representatives from the ethnic minorities, or of the NLD for that matter? Will minority delegates to the convention be chosen by the ethnic minorities themselves, as they hoped when they met the UN special envoy? And will they be able to discuss the incorporation of rights into the proposed constitution, enshrining rights of ethnic minority civilians, to prevent the abuses which have taken place by the military, as mentioned by the noble Baroness? Those abuses include rapes, torture, murder, forced relocations and confiscation of property, and were cited by the US representative at the recent meeting of the Commission on Human Rights.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my short answer to the noble Lord's question, which is very sensible and properly directed, is that we shall not know what is going to happen until next Monday, when the convention reconvenes in order to draw up the new constitution for Burma. I understand that some of the ethnic groups have been approached, but the main body of exchange is between the regime and Aung San Suu Kyi's party. We do not know whether she will be invited to join the reconvened talks on Monday. As I understand it, a number of the ethnic groups are waiting to see what happens to Aung San Suu Kyi—that is, whether she is invited to join and whether she decides to take up that invitation—before they make their own decisions about joining the discussions.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the meeting held in Rangoon in January between General Bo Mya, who is holder of the Burma Star and has led the Karen for the past 55 years, was at least a welcome first step and that we should do all that we can to encourage the process of dialogue and engagement? Will she also confirm that, if the military junta simply hand-picks representatives from the ethnic minorities, that will not secure a long-term peace? The figures with whom they engage must be legitimate and authentic, as in the case of General Bo Mya. Following my own visits to both sides of the Burma border and to the Karen camps, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred, perhaps I may underline the importance of what she said to the House. Even though engagement and dialogue are taking place, the continuing scale of atrocities there must not be overlooked. Rape continues to be used as a weapon of war, and the destruction of villages and the massive displacement of large numbers of internally displaced people continue.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, and the note of scepticism that he introduced is entirely proper and understandable. I thank him, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for all the work that he has done. Of course, Her Majesty's Government are one of the strongest critics of human rights violations. We repeatedly raise our concerns about all types of human rights violations and about the consistent pattern of violations which have affected the different ethnic groups over many, many years.
	The noble Lord is right to say that we are seeking a genuine process of exchange. Of course, we do not want the regime to hand-pick the people in the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made the point that those people must be genuinely representative of their communities. We are sceptical about the regime's motives—there is no doubt about that. However, we have an avenue open and we should work to try to bring some influence to bear in the best way possible, as was the case in the discussions which took place in April, to which the noble Lord referred. During the course of the next couple of weeks, I believe that we shall be in a better position to make a judgment about whether this is a genuine initiative.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, will the Government consider urging the United Nations Security Council to impose an arms embargo on the regime in Burma?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid that this is one of those occasions when we come up against the difficulty posed by Security Council resolutions. As the noble Lord will know, they are not always easy to secure when some on the Security Council do not take the same view as we do. We have been able to make some progress in terms of General Assembly resolutions but, alas, not in terms of Security Council resolutions in the way that my noble friend indicated. That is not for want of trying behind the scenes. I assure my noble friend that we shall continue to do all that we can to draw the human rights violations in Burma to the attention of those on the Security Council who we believe should have a rather more robust attitude.

Lord Elton: My Lords, is Burma not more likely to be responsive to the views of ASEAN than to those of the United Nations? What are the Government doing to persuade ASEAN to express its views on this matter?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we regularly raise our concerns on Burma with our Asian partners, and we try to encourage them to press for improvements in Burma's human rights record. Most recently, my honourable friend Mike O'Brien did so at the Asia/Europe Meeting (ASEM) of Foreign Ministers, which took place in Kildare on 18 April. My honourable friend was able to issue a very forthright statement. He said:
	"If the military regime can deliver what it purports to promise—to release the democratic opposition, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and to allow all parties to participate in a fully functioning and representative National Convention—these will be important steps towards national reconciliation".
	We are holding out for that possibility. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, let us not lose our healthy scepticism in view of what we all know has been the record of this regime.

Lord Hylton: My Lords—

G8 Summit: Sea Island, Georgia

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they expect the G8 Summit in Sea Island, Georgia, on 8 to 10 June, to achieve.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the G8 Summit agenda is still under discussion but we expect that it will cover international support for regionally-led development in the Middle East on education and knowledge; democracy building and economic development; a support package of measures to help developing countries to grow economically; further measures to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and polio; security issues, particularly in relation to transport, non-proliferation and counter-terrorism, and measures tackling corruption.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she recognise that many of us who followed what were originally G7 Summits have grown increasingly sceptical about their value as they have become more and more of a media circus and less of a substantive discussion? Can she confirm that there will not be discussion on the issues that these summits were originally set up to discuss, that is, global, economic and financial balances in which the participation of China would be rather important given the vast gap between the Chinese trade surplus and the American deficit? Can she tell the House whether we can still expect a US proposal for a greater Middle East initiative and how actively Her Majesty's Government are discussing with their European partners what a European response to any sort of initiative on the Middle East is likely to be?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question. It implied somehow that this was a fairly pointless exercise and had rather missed its target in not having a sufficiently robust economic component. The first two points which I drew to your Lordships' attention do have robust economic components. There are real economic problems in the countries of the Middle East. The economies are growing more slowly than anywhere else in the world. They have a growing population of young people. Fifty per cent of the people in those countries are under the age of 18. There are growing problems of youth unemployment. So this is enormously important in relation to the Middle East.
	The noble Lord will know—I have answered before—of the rather different nuances that are placed on the question of a greater Middle East proposal, but it is under discussion. I was at a Euro-Med meeting last week and discussed this with colleagues from the region as well as with colleagues in Europe. I shall also have the honour to represent the United Kingdom at three forthcoming international conferences involving our Arab colleagues within the next six days.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is high time we seriously considered expanding the G8 format to include as equal partners a number of the leading developing countries? The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned China but there are also India, Brazil and South Africa to consider. Does she not also agree that as the G8 Summits are, by definition, not decision-making bodies, the normal argument against expansion—that this makes taking decisions more difficult—does not apply?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. I have a great deal of sympathy with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on this matter. That is why in the past there have been invitations to others outside the immediate ambit of the G8 to attend G8 Summits as observers or observer/participants. I believe that invitations will be sent out on this occasion. Some may already have been sent. I do not want to prejudice the position by suggesting to whom they may be sent because I am not sure whether they have been sent.
	All these matters are still under discussion. We must remember that Foreign Ministers are meeting tomorrow in Washington to discuss the agenda, what it will involve and who might be invited. The Sherpas still have work in progress and the Finance Ministers meet on the 22 and 23 of this month.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the main agenda item on this summit almost certainly will be Middle East reform. Does the Minister agree, first, that this will be a good opportunity to remind world leaders that in Iraq—that is the main problem area along with Israel/Palestine, of course—despite all the horrific prisoner abuses and some of the rather wild and idiotic talk about the coalition effort being doomed or in a nosedive, the security situation is now showing signs of coming under better control as most decent Iraqis unite against extreme violence and barbarism of the kind we read about, to our horror, yesterday? Secondly, is it not also the right time for the Prime Minister, who will obviously attend the G8 Summit, to be a little bolder in telling our American allies that they cannot handle the situation alone and that in future the coalition forces must shed their image as an occupying power and work to some kind of clear Iraqi sovereignty?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the agenda will not be dominated solely by Iraq and the Israel/Palestinian issue, although I think that we all freely concede that at virtually any international meeting at present that involves our friends from the Middle East region that is bound to be an important item on the agenda. However, I hope that there will be a broader perspective taken about these issues in the Middle East and about the developments in the way that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in the remarkable speech he made on 1 March.
	There are a great number of good signs of reform being generated in the Middle East. Egypt, for example, has just set up a national council for human rights; Oman held its first elections on universal suffrage last year; and the Saudis have announced an intention to hold municipal elections. We hear very little about all of those matters in the very gloomy picture that is put forward. However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is very bold in the way that he states his case. He does not lose an opportunity to do so. He very sensibly does not go in for megaphone politics, which, as the noble Lord will be aware, rarely delivers what it should. I point out, for example, that yesterday my right honourable friend made clear that we would be happy to have a permanent ICRC presence in our sector in Iraq.

Criminal Prosecutions: False Identity

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many criminal prosecutions, in the latest year for which figures are available, have failed because the accused gave false details of his identity resulting in a person unconnected with the offence being summoned to appear in court.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the Crown Prosecution Service now holds central records of the number of prosecutions which fail owing to lack of identification evidence or doubts over identification. However, it does not include the level of detail to answer the precise Question asked by the noble Lord. That could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost. CPS areas report that defendants give false identification particulars regularly, for example at some London courts. This is said to happen two to three times per week.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer. I fully understand why the detailed information would not be readily available. Does he care to venture an opinion as to whether identity cards would make a significant difference to the problem that he has described?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, whether they would make a particular difference to the problem is one question. However, I would make clear, as indeed the consultation paper issued by the Government on identification cards shows, that false identity is a significant issue in a number of areas, not just this area. False identity is a criminal activity. ID fraud is growing and costs the country more than £1.3 million a year. We believe that multiple or false identities are used in more than one-third of terrorist-related activity, in organised crime and money laundering. So, we believe that as regards crime generally, ID cards would have a significantly helpful impact.

Lord Henley: My Lords, surely the noble and learned Lord could answer the simple question; that is, whether identity cards would or would not make a difference in this case. It seems pretty obvious that there is an answer. Surely he can give an Answer to the question.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the kind of case to which the Question relates is typically one in which someone is stopped for a motoring offence and is asked to produce documents at a police station. At that stage a false name is given, perhaps a brother's or a friend's name. When the police summon that person to court because the documents have not been produced, it is then discovered that the police officer cannot identify that person. That is a specific type of issue with that low-level type of crime where someone is stopped and gives a false name. As noble Lords will know from the consultation paper, the proposal that is put forward is not one, and will not be one, that requires the carrying of identification cards even when those cards become compulsory. So, it is not clear to me that this necessarily would answer that particular point.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not agree that this is yet another example, not of the importance of identity cards but of the importance of the authorities having biometric information about individuals with a number which can relate to them? The card will tell you nothing. Provided the biometric information exists somewhere, that should enable certain identification between the person and the corresponding number on other records, where appropriate.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right, which is why the Government believe that using biometric data is a very important part of the way forward in relation to existing ID cards and the proposals. The noble Lord is right: that sort of information makes it very difficult for an identification to be falsified because the material is particular to that individual.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I understand my noble and learned friend's explanation with regard to some traffic offences, but this Question refers to criminal prosecutions, which I think reflect the seriousness of the situation. Am I to understand that if someone is apprehended for a criminal offence the police do not get supporting evidence of identity? If that is the case, why are the people not apprehended until they can prove who they are?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the fact remains that traffic offences are still criminal offences and when prosecuted they are criminal prosecutions. So the answer is right in the way that I have given it. The noble Lord is also right to say—and this is why I framed the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in the way that I did—that in relation to more serious cases it is not a question of the police simply stopping someone, taking his alleged name and then waiting to see him in court. They will bring someone in, interview that person and carry out checks and inquiries, which are very likely to identify who that person actually is even if a false name was given in the first place.

Lord McNally: My Lords, whether or not identity cards would produce the result that some noble Lords believe they would, will the Attorney-General clarify what happens when false information is given? He has identified that as a criminal offence in itself. Surely, one way of curbing this practice would be to pursue the matter where wrong information is given and raise the stakes substantially to deter the practice.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. In the example I gave, at the moment if someone gives a false identification and the wrong person is summoned to court, then so long as the true individual can be identified that will be a criminal offence and will be prosecuted either as wasting police time or, in a more serious case, maybe as perverting the course of justice.
	As to the more general issue, again the noble Lord will know that the consultation paper and the draft Bill propose further criminal offences in relation to the abuse of identity. Indeed, the Home Office has announced the launch of a website, which will help people to protect their own identities, and that should be going live in the summer.

West Coast Main Line

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When negotiations for the new terms for the West Coast Main Line and Cross Country franchises will be completed.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the negotiations for these franchises are complex and there is no fixed deadline for their completion. Intensive discussions between the Strategic Rail Authority and Virgin are progressing, with a view to concluding negotiations as soon as possible.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. People will be relieved that there is progress because I believe that the Government had got themselves into an almost impossible position. The problem is that an impractical scheme was agreed between Railtrack and Virgin for the West Coast Main Line and cross-country upgrading. Is not this a case where Virgin and Stagecoach must win because either they have a scheme which is impossible to deliver, or they must be paid a management fee for continuing to operate the service? Does this not mean that taxpayers, passengers and freight customers must be on the losing end?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House would not expect me to disclose the Government's hand with regard to the negotiations with Virgin, which, as I say, are reaching a fruitful stage and will be completed in the not too distant future. The facts of the matter are not quite as the noble Lord has portrayed them. At present the arrangements are on the basis of an annual budget for the service, so it is under clear scrutiny from the rail authority. Of course we are hopeful that the negotiations will result in a franchise that will be based on the principle of all such franchises; namely, value for money for the taxpayer and for the fare-paying public.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a little odd that the subsidy per passenger on the West Coast Main Line is more than £12 and on the East Coast Main Line the operator pays the Government £1.84? Will my noble friend assure the House that this will be taken into account in the renegotiation of the West Coast franchises and that the best value for money for taxpayers will be achieved on the West Coast Main Line?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall certainly reassure my noble friend on the second point with regard to value for money. The House will perhaps derive the obvious conclusion from the comparative figures between the operation of the East Coast Main Line and the operation of the West Coast. Necessary investment was put into the East Coast Main Line some time ago, with the result that the services work effectively and have attracted a fare-paying public.
	There are problems with the West Coast Main Line, which has been neglected for so long. Let me just say in defence of West Coast Main Line issues that it is the busiest, longest, mixed-traffic railway line in the whole of Europe. As such, it is a very difficult line to modernise—and 80 per cent of the line is being modernised. That does not alter the fact that at present the subsidy from the taxpayer is significant and we shall need to improve that with regard to the future.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, is it still the Government's intention to limit the term of the franchise to seven years?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Virgin franchise runs to 2012. That of course is dependent on the outcome of these negotiations. A position has been entered into, which is now subject to annual review because of the difficulties that are recognised in all parts of the House. Subject to the negotiations being successful and stringent conditions being met as far as concerns the taxpayer, the franchise will run to 2012.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, notwithstanding the inconvenience to which thousands of passengers have been put by weekend closures and blockades, the SRA deserves considerable credit for at last getting the costs of this project and the timetabling of the works under control? They look as though they will produce some real benefits for the travelling public from this September.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that point. It is important that the travelling public are encouraged by the fact that the new timetables, which are due from September onwards, will result in a 30-minute reduction in journeys from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London and in a 20-minute reduction from Birmingham to London. These are significant gains. The reliability of the service will also greatly improve. I am grateful to my noble friend for emphasising that point in his question.

Hereditary Peers' By-election

The Clerk of the Parliaments: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am now able to announce the result of the by-election to elect a Conservative hereditary Peer in accordance with Standing Order 10.
	Forty-five Lords completed valid ballot papers. A paper setting out the complete results is being made available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library. That paper gives the number of votes cast for each candidate.
	The successful candidate was Viscount Trenchard.

Housing Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Civil Service (No. 2) Bill [HL]

(formerly Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill [HL])

Report received.

Higher Education Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
	(Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 34:
	After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
	"EXTENSION OF SIX MONTH TIME LIMIT
	If in relation to proceedings or prospective proceedings under section 28V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) (enforcement, remedies and procedure), the dispute concerned is referred to a body designated by the Secretary of State under section 13(1) or the National Assembly for Wales under section 13(2) of the Higher Education Act 2004 before the end of the period of six months mentioned in paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 3 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (enforcement and procedure), the period allowed by that sub-paragraph shall be extended by two months."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I move the amendment on behalf of the Royal National Institute of the Blind and Skill, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities. The issue in contention in relation to this amendment is what happens when two sets of appeal procedures overlap. As your Lordships know, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, those with disabilities may ultimately appeal to the courts if they feel that their rights under either of those two Acts are not being met. However, once a university or a college's internal appeal procedures have been exhausted, there is only six months left in which to lodge any further appeal to the courts. The question is whether such an appeal to an independent adjudicator counts against the six months in relation to going to the courts.
	The Minister's assurance in debate in the other place was that the clocks will be stayed until all internal procedures—and if necessary any appeal to the office of the independent adjudicator—are exhausted. He said that this should give the organisations who are concerned, and noble Lords, the guarantee and protection that if an individual makes it absolutely clear to the court that the matter is being considered by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, the court has the capacity to hold on to the case and not to say that under the DDA the complaint should fall because the time period has lapsed.
	In this amendment, we are asking that just as when there is a referral under the DDA to the Disability Rights Commission for conciliation prior to resorting to the courts, on such occasions not only is the six-month clock not set ticking, but there will also be an extra two months granted to allow for time delays. Here, we are also asking that should there be an appeal to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator after the internal procedures have been completed, and again the clock is not set ticking for that six months, and that as with an appeal to the Disability Rights Commission, they should be granted an extra two months in the cases concerned.
	In effect, this amendment and the following amendment, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would bring student appeals resorting to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator into line with procedures under the DDA and the Disability Rights Commission. It would seem sensible to do this, and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to our suggestions. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale: The amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lady Seccombe has been grouped with this amendment, and it covers the same situation as that described by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It will come as no surprise to her or to the rest of the Committee that I prefer our somewhat simpler amendment, which seeks to amend the Disability Discrimination Act rather than this Bill. Both amendments cover a single point. As we established earlier this week, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 ultimately gives disabled students the right to go to the courts within a six-month period if recourse to all other complaints procedures have failed. This obviously will include the new independent complaints provisions envisaged by this Bill. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I welcome the Government's assurance that complaints are likely to be dealt with within the six-month time scale and that anyway a disabled student can lodge a case with the courts and ask for it to be stayed while the case is going through the Independent Complaints Commission.
	Why then, is this amendment, in whichever version it comes, necessary? The answer is that under the Disability Discrimination Act there is already a two-month extension of the time limit of six months that the Disability Rights Commission can take to consider a case before it goes to the conciliation service. If we have both the DDA and the Higher Education Act on the statute book, I know to whom I would refer a disabled student in contention. I accept the assurance given by the Minister in another place, which is in col. 110 of Hansard on 12 February, that the Government are sympathetic to and have been considering this issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform us where this consideration has got to.

Lord Triesman: I rise to intervene early, knowing that other noble Lords might wish to speak on this issue. I want to indicate immediately that the Government are prepared to be helpful, and it is probably as well for the purposes of the debate that I do so now.
	First let me say that these are the last amendments on Part 2 of the Bill, and I thank all noble Lords for the really good debates that we have had on the new provisions on student complaints. I hope that all Members of the Committee have been reassured about the scope of academic judgment exclusion, and we have committed ourselves to come back on Report to address the role of the visitor in some kinds of staff conflict.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. I understand the concerns expressed by noble Lords that disabled students who have complaints about discrimination should not miss the opportunity to take their cases to court. I am therefore grateful to noble Lords for their amendments, which seek to extend the period by which cases under Part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act must be submitted to court by two months, from six to eight months. This would apply where the student has referred the complaint to the designated operator. This is similar to the provisions in the DDA that extend the deadline for submitting complaints by two months for those claimants whose cases have been referred to approved conciliation.
	Although conciliation is not the purpose of the operator, because it reaches decisions and makes recommendations, I appreciate the argument advanced by noble Lords that there are sufficient similarities and that the same principles should be involved in extending the time period that applies to both. Where a disabled student's case alleges continuing discrimination, such as how the institution handles a complaint, the student could argue that the six-month time limit should start from when the complaint was finally determined by the institution. However, where a disabled student's complaint relates to an alleged one-off act of discrimination, the six-month time limit will start from when this act was done. It is certainly possible that going through the internal processes of any institution, and then the reviewer, will push up against the six-month time limit.
	Noble Lords will be aware that students can lodge their cases in the courts and ask for them to be stayed where they are being considered by a university or the OIA. We took account of these rights in drafting Schedule 2 to the Bill. This includes a provision in paragraph 3 which makes it possible for the scheme to refuse to hear complaints that have been taken to court if they are ongoing and have not been stayed. If they have been stayed, the scheme must deal with them. The student can seek to resolve the complaint through internal procedures and, if necessary, through the OIA without running the risk that the six-month time limit on DDA cases might elapse before the complaint comes. If it is not resolved from before they would get the opportunity to take it to a tribunal.
	Nevertheless, despite these safeguards, noble Lords have made a strong case for having the same right to a two-month extension for disabled students who take their case to conciliation, or those who go to the reviewer. That is why we can be helpful on this occasion. Although I am sure that in every case noble Lords feel that their amendments will answer all the problems, we feel that they do not entirely do the trick. I ask noble Lords to withdraw them, so that the Government can return on Report with amendments of our own that can be considered at that stage.

Lord Skelmersdale: I am extremely grateful and I am sure that the noble Baroness is too. It is a nice surprise just occasionally to have a chink in the Government's armour. Naturally, I fully accept that the Government's drafting is considerably better than mine.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I too am grateful to the Minister for this concession. It is logical that in these circumstances the two sets of appeals to the Disability Rights Commission and to the office of the independent adjudicator should be aligned. I am very glad that the Minister and the Department have seen the logic, and I am extremely grateful to them for their concessions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: moved Amendment No. 36:
	After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
	"NATIONAL TARGET FOR PARTICIPATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
	(1) Before making any decision or publishing any regulations under this Act relating to student fees the Secretary of State shall, not later than 5th April in each calendar year, lay before Parliament a report, setting out—
	(a) a target proportion of persons born in the United Kingdom in each age cohort from 18 to 21 years who should participate in full-time courses of education at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom for each of the three forthcoming academic years;
	(b) the estimated total cost of providing for the education of those students, together with a statement of what increase in overall funding will be required to meet the target he has set and how he intends to meet that funding requirement.
	(2) Before setting a target of 50 per cent participation or more under subsection (1)(a) the Secretary of State shall conduct or institute an inquiry into the impact of that target on the economy and on British universities and lay the results of that inquiry before both Houses of Parliament.
	(3) In carrying out any inquiry under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall consult—
	(a) representatives of United Kingdom universities;
	(b) any individual higher education institution wishing to make representations to him;
	(c) representatives of business, trades and professions;
	(d) representatives of students.
	(4) In carrying out the inquiry under subsection (2), the Secretary of State or persons appointed by him shall consider—
	(a) the affordability of his target;
	(b) such skills shortages as may be apparent in the economy;
	(c) prospects of employment for the number of graduates for which he is planning; and
	(d) the quality of courses offered at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom."

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: We have got off to a very good start this morning, so I live in hope in respect of Amendment No. 36. This amendment provides an opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate on the whole issue of access to higher education and whether the Government are right to set a target of 50 per cent. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be relieved to hear that I am not intending to initiate that myself. But there are a number of points which I would like to make in supporting this amendment.
	First, there is a mistake in my amendment in that it refers to,
	"age cohort from 18 to 21 years".
	That should be 18 to 30. I would love to blame the Public Bill Office or someone else, but sadly there is only myself to blame for that error. That refers to the Government's declared target of having 50 per cent of students in that cohort in place by their deadline of 2010.
	I have no objection at all to us having 50 per cent or whatever percentage of students in higher education. My objection is to setting a specific target and not actually setting the means by which that target will be achieved. It would be difficult for me to object to having 50 per cent of students in higher education, as we had already achieved that in Scotland during my period in office, but we never set out to have that as a target. We achieved it, I venture to suggest, because perhaps the schools were a little bit better than they are in England, and perhaps the universities were a little bit better funded than they are in England. I was delighted when reading the Universities UK brief to see that there seems to be a degree of support for this amendment from Universities UK.
	The purpose of the amendment is very simple. If the Government are going to set a target then they should set out how they intend to achieve that, and they should make clear that the means to achieve it—in terms of resources—are in place. What has happened is that progressively we have seen the unit of resource being reduced for the universities. It is all very fine and grand for Ministers and politicians to stand up at their party conferences and declare that they will have x percentage of young people benefiting from higher education, while leaving the institutions of higher education to do it on the same overall amount of resource, or, in this case, less per student. We had a very interesting debate during our last sitting on the problem of academic salaries. This amendment is, basically, to make the Government—if I could use a rather crude phrase—put their money where their mouth is, and set out how they will achieve it.
	The amendment also focuses not just on affordability but on skills shortages. I will not weary your Lordships with clichés about plumbers, and so on, but there is undoubtedly a skills shortage in certain areas. There are many of us who question whether it really is right to send someone to university who may work very hard and do a degree in some subject which is not immediately attractive to the jobs market. They have worked very hard and under the proposals of the Bill they leave university very considerably in debt. When they go to the jobs market they find that there are no jobs in the way that they might have expected. Whereas perhaps if they had gone into further education, or indeed part-time education, they might have been better placed to help with our economy and help themselves.
	We all know horror stories of people who have turned up to some institutions to find that the course that they thought they were coming to had been changed, and they end up doing a degree or—sadly, for some of them—drop out halfway through the course because of changes of that kind.
	The other point I would like to focus on—having said that I want to be brief—is that I am very concerned about the Government's 50 per cent target, not just because, other than nice words from the Chancellor, the means have not been willed, but because I see all kinds of additional pressures falling upon the universities which will make it even harder for them to achieve the Government's objectives. Some of the pressures arise from actions by the Government themselves.
	I will draw attention to one area—the accession of the former Communist countries which joined the European Union to much celebration last week. That is a fantastic step forward, but it has implications for the universities and the Government's target. All the students from the 10 accession countries will be treated as home students. They will be paying fees of £1,150 per year instead of the overseas charges of £8,000 to £10,000. I believe in markets and I would be amazed if that did not result in a big increase in supply. Certainly the figures that have recently been published show a very substantial increase in the number of applications. Overall, applications for places in the autumn have risen by 3.1 per cent, compared with the same time last year, and 2.2 per cent among under-21s.
	Of the former Soviet bloc, the biggest increase in applications is from Poland, which have gone up from 95 last year to 442. That is a 365 per cent increase. I suggest that not everybody in Poland may have heard of the opportunity that is now presenting itself. Slovakia's applications are up by 313 per cent; the Czech Republic by 176 per cent; Estonia by 229 per cent, and so on. Interest from Cyprus has more than doubled, with 1,458 students having made applications.
	I know that the Higher Education Policy Institute has forecast an extra 30,000 students from the 10 accession countries. I do not wish to do the Government a disservice, but my reading of the House of Commons proceedings suggested that Ministers were not taking these figures particularly seriously. That prediction of 30,000 extra places by 2010—the Government's target date—is in line with this increase. It does not take a Brain of Britain to work out that there will be a huge attraction, that people will talk to each other about the opportunities, people will write articles and that these numbers will increase.
	My concern—and the reason behind this amendment—is that the Government are not providing more funding for these predicted extra EU students. The universities have been told that they must also absorb the loss of overseas fees from about 6,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students from the 10 accession countries presently in the system.
	So the purpose of this amendment is simply to help the Minister in her discussions with the Treasury and to ensure that the resources to which the Chancellor was so keen to give his commitment in his Statement the other day are made available. She and her department will then be able to deliver their declared policy, about which I have some doubts. Should the Minister decide that perhaps it is not wise to set a target of 50 per cent, but instead to concentrate on the principle of ensuring that youngsters are directed to those institutions offering them the best prospect of obtaining employment and making a contribution to themselves, their families and their country, I will cheer them to the rafters. However, while they stick to this policy, I cannot for the life of me see why the noble Baroness would not want this provision included on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Dearing: Long ago, when I was a civil servant responsible for providing briefing material to Ministers on Parliamentary Questions or on amendments to Bills, I was trained to consider whether a dirk might lie behind the cloak of the question. In applying that kind of thinking to the noble Lord's amendment, it occurs to me that this is a crafty wheeze on the part of the noble Scot to give advance warning to his compatriots in Scotland if there is any risk that England might ever catch up with Scottish participation rates.
	I was invited to help on the review of the future of higher education in the United Kingdom, and as part of that we visited Scotland. I was impressed by two things: first, the rapidity with which participation had advanced there between the end of the 1980s to the mid-1990s—indeed, the years when the noble Lord was in office. Participation doubled in those years. In 1996, participation by Scottish 18 to 21 year-olds—the original wording of this clause until it was amended just now—stood at 42 per cent compared with around 30 per cent in England. The second good thing was the heavy emphasis placed on vocational higher education; that is, the proportion of students working for HNC and HND qualifications. In the Government's White Paper, the proposal that mattered to me was that the bulk of the expansion in England should be in vocational degrees.
	Perhaps I may comment in regard to the White Paper that I recollect that the aim is not a target of 50 per cent participation, but progress towards that percentage among 18 to 30 year-olds. Indeed, I suggest to the noble Lord that, should he wish to amend his proposed new clause, it should include not only young people between the ages of 18 and 30, but also part-time higher education. If, as the noble Lord says, participation by full-time youngsters in Scotland now stands at a little over 50 per cent, then I would guess that were he to include part-time students between the ages of 18 and 30 years, the figure is probably cracking on towards 60 per cent. I congratulate the noble Lord on that.
	I am glad that the noble Lord is not taking the line that it is a bad idea for England to follow the path taken by Scotland, but rather to ensure that the means are willed by the Government. Of course we all endorse that. I hope very much that we shall learn from Scottish practice. Recently I read the policy adopted by the Australian Government towards higher education. As I recall, it is entitled something like "Higher Education: Backing Australia". In his introduction to the report, the Minister quoted Winston Churchill from an address given to Harvard University in 1943:
	"The empires of the future are the empires of the mind".
	It is very important that we create in all parts of the United Kingdom that wealth of the mind, which is the real wealth of any people.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: From these Benches I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. We feel that it will be to the advantage of this country to expand the levels of achievement of our young people. Just as, in the 1880s, primary education and the attainment of basic levels of literacy and numeracy were regarded as necessary, today we want more than for our young people just to leave school able to read, write and understand the instructions on machinery—which was perhaps the case in the 1950s when universal secondary education was introduced. Today we must go further than that. We need young people who can think for themselves, which means going beyond what is known as level 3—A levels and their vocational equivalents. Our young people need to be trained to levels of skill and technical competence that are the equivalent of level 4, which embrace—and it is important to make this clear—the old concept of the HND, comprising two years' study post A-levels. The HND was a highly regarded vocational qualification.
	We regret the fact that, in a sense, the government White Paper reinforces what is already implicit in the English system, which is that the way to attain a qualification in higher education is to take A-levels and move on to university. What Members on these Benches would like to see is a far wider range of qualifications. We call this the "climbing frame to learning", which should be put in place from the age of 14 onwards, the point at which young people begin to think about what qualifications they will need for the future. So we welcome the widening of the agenda set out in the Tomlinson proposals on education for 14 to 19 year-olds being put forward by the Government.
	We are very much with the proposed new clause in spirit because we see an inherent contradiction in what the Government are seeking to do—to widen participation and increase the element of social inclusion within our universities and yet at the same time to raise the money for those aims by increasing fees. As I say, to us this demonstrates an inherent contradiction in what the Government want to do. We feel strongly that the Government are willing the ends without willing the means. It is no bad thing to persuade them to do the latter as well.
	Nevertheless, we have reservations because, like the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, we believe it necessary for the expansion to embrace part-time study as well as full-time education. The wording of subsection (1)(a) proposes targets relating to 18 to 21 year-olds,
	"who should participate in full-time courses of education at higher education institutions".
	It is essential to widen that aim so that it embraces many routes. A young person at the age of 16 should be able to commit themselves to an apprenticeship and, from there, move on to take an HND. Perhaps the young person will take some time off, but they will be able to use that HND qualification as a stepping stone to taking a full-fledged honours degree and then, perhaps, a PhD. Such routes must be open to young people.
	It is important to recognise that many young people consider it more attractive to think in terms of earning and learning. They may not be sure whether they want to pursue the university route. They should be able to dip their toes in the water by taking part-time courses to see whether they work for them, and then move on from that point.
	We share many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and for that reason have some reservations about the amendment. In spirit, however, we are very much with it.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: Like other noble Lords, I welcome the expansion in higher education, provided that those who come into it do so willingly because they want to study their chosen subject and if they are properly able to benefit from it.
	The biggest expansion in higher education took place between the end of the 1980s and the early 1990s. Those of us running institutions during that time can well remember both the heady excitement of the rate of that expansion—the numbers doubled in five years—and the quite terrific efforts that had to be made in order to accommodate so many students with dwindling funding per student. Although the money was increasing overall at the time, it worked out at less per student.
	Therefore, I support my noble friend's amendment, because if expansion were to take place without the money, I do not believe that this time the university system could stand it. There was, as in the frequently quoted phrase, a little fat in the system as the 1980s came to an end, but there is not now, as we have all agreed. If expansion is to continue there must be proper funding to allow it.
	I do not believe that it is right and proper for governments to set targets. Some of us go back a long way in higher education. I remember the time during the 1970s and 1980s when the Government were constantly setting targets by subject for the then-polytechnics. We were told how many engineering and science students we had to take, but the places were never filled.
	However, the Government went on grinding out those targets year on year, which was nonsense and everyone knew that. Nevertheless, funding followed the targets for a few months and then, because the huge numbers of engineers that the Government thought they wanted could not be recruited throughout the 1970s in the great white heat—as I think it was known—of the technological revolution, the money was clawed back again. It was nonsense.
	Expansion of higher education takes place because of decisions by individual young people who apply. It is based on improvement that takes place in schools and not on anything that higher education can do.

Baroness Lockwood: I was interested in the way the amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I accept the principle. If the Government are setting targets then there is clearly a responsibility to pay for those targets being realised. I suggest that had that principle been applied in the 1980s and early 1990s the universities would not be in the difficult position that they are in today.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Forgive me for interrupting the noble Baroness, but she missed the point that I was making. We never had a specific target of 50 per cent; the Government have set a target of 50 per cent and therefore should be able to set out how it will be achieved. That is what the amendment seeks.

Baroness Lockwood: As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, pointed out, this target is not a hard and fast target. It is progress towards a 50 per cent achievement. It encapsulates what was taking place in the higher education system. It has been estimated that even if nothing were done on access, by demographic factors alone there would be an additional demand of around 120,000 students by 2010. When we add to that the progress being made and the upward trend that we are seeing in A-levels, we are broadly moving towards the target without some of the policies that are being pursued in the universities to widen participation.
	Nevertheless, having said that, the policies that universities are implementing are important because they are aimed at raising the expectations of young people and they are seeking ways and means by which those young people can attain higher levels of education and learning than at the present time. That equation must also be taken into account when we are thinking in terms of 50 per cent.
	I would not wish to do anything that could detract from the importance of this movement forward towards 50 per cent, which I am confident will be achieved by 2010.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: There are undercurrents in this discussion. Having been vice-chancellor of both London and Edinburgh Universities I would not want to be caught in the undercurrents of comparing Scottish and English higher education—a dangerous position to be in. Nonetheless, there is a clear issue here. I make one point about the Scottish expansion, which is that it was significantly aided by the work of the colleges of higher education and the range of courses that they provided. Perhaps there is something there that can be taken into the English context.
	Just to show that I am even handed, I would caution the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to be careful in comparing the merits of Scottish and English schools now. There may be a different story to tell, but that is another matter. The important essence of the amendment is that in either this or some other form there should be a proper reckoning of the gap between aspiration and affordability; means and ends.
	This section of the Bill is set out to identify a means of dealing with a problem that has been widely recognised—including, I am glad to say, by the Government—that universities are under-funded. This is the offer on the table to increase the funding, but there is an inevitable concern, which will come up in later amendments, that any additional funding may not be seen as embodying what we have elsewhere called "additionality".
	If, none the less, there is an annual proper open public discussion about the relation between aspiration and affordability, that will much help the cause to which the Bill is devoted.

Lord Winston: I want to be on both sides of the argument on the amendment. While I totally support the general idea of the expansion of participation in higher education, I have great sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. There is an issue that needs to be carefully thrashed out. One of the growing concerns within the universities is that we can confuse quantity with quality. One of the issues must be Britain's competitiveness in a global economy. There is a growing concern in our universities that we are not going to fund the quality we need to be competitive.
	I am not going to ask whether that is true of Scotland; that would be an invidious question. But the situation in England is somewhat different at the present time. I am certain that if the expansion is to go ahead there must be a proper mechanism for exploring what it will mean to the economy of the universities and the economy of our country.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who cautioned my noble friend Lord Forsyth about comparisons with Scotland. In the past 10 years the rapid expansion has presented problems. In some areas, according to a survey by Edinburgh and Strathclyde Universities, 40 per cent of graduates with jobs work in bars, shops and restaurants—they are not in graduate jobs that need a degree.
	Ten years ago, 8,000 graduates could not find a job at all after obtaining their degrees. Last year, in 2003, 21,000 could not. The fitting of graduates to jobs is a problem if expansion is too rapid. I understand that the rapid expansion has meant that it has been a struggle in the top universities in Scotland to stay at the top of the UK and international league. Last year St Andrews University was the only one in the top 10.
	If the Government are determined to chase that target with their top-down approach, the suggestions in the amendment are essential. It is probable that if universities were told that it was their job if possible to arrive at the 50 per cent target, they would each find their own way of doing so. Many are already doing so, as we know.
	The target could probably be arrived at in a way better than the one suggested in the Bill—I indicated my feeling about this at Second Reading—but, if this is the way in which the Government seek to achieve it, the various parts of the amendment set out what they have to do. They have to work out the extra costs; they have to look at job prospects; they have to look at the effect on the economy; they have to look at the effect on university offerings; and they have to look at the effect on the remainder of United Kingdom university provision. We must always remember that it is a United Kingdom market and not only an England and Wales market.
	The amendment sets out what the universities have to do. It seems to me, therefore, that this is not only a very good subject for debate, but a very good amendment.

Lord Taverne: I support the spirit of the amendment for a slightly different reason. As everyone agrees, the universities will continue to be very short of funds and there will be a considerable increase in the number of foreign students, particularly those from the European Union. This is to be greatly welcomed. However, in those circumstances, the large expansion in the number of students from Europe and overseas generally could be at the expense of students from the United Kingdom. One would not wish the Government's aim of expanding the number of students from the United Kingdom to be prejudiced by this. The situation should be monitored and the spirit of the amendment should be supported.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I shall intervene briefly to make what some may describe as a reactionary speech—but, over the years, I have learnt that what might appear reactionary today very often appears to be apposite and accurate in prediction tomorrow.
	I have immense reservations about setting targets—or, as my noble friend described it, "moving towards targets". My reservations are based essentially on conversations I have had with my three sons over the last 10 years of their experiences in higher education, and on the experiences of the large number of young people they have brought into my homes in London and the Lake District to discuss these matters, particularly during the period leading up to the 1998 Bill and the changes it introduced. That was the only issue in the previous Parliament over which I had any reservation about voting in the Division Lobbies in favour of the Government's position. But I did so and, as a result, never voted against the Government in the previous Parliament. But on this issue the whole Bill goes far beyond what I regard as acceptable. Perhaps I may explain why.
	My sons and their friends brought home stories of many young people engaged in higher education today who are simply unfit for it and who should never have been led into it. I am frightened that, under the provisions of the Bill we are now considering, many young people will be led into higher education; that they will end up dropping out and incurring debt. It is all right the Minister saying to me that this is not debt and that it comes under some other heading—but it is debt.
	I paid for most of my sons' higher education, but they took out student loans and borrowed money from the banks. These were not large amounts of money, but they regard the sums as debt. They are debt. Whatever happens in the future, young people will be lured—and I use the term "lured"—into higher education; they will leave it, and then regret the fact that they took on these obligations.
	That is contrary to everything in which I believe as a democratic socialist. I still believe in some core principles. I believe that when young people leave school they should be in a position to fly out into the world as free as a bird and unencumbered by liability. But we are drawing some people into a liability that they will deeply regret in later life.
	I welcome the fact that there are those who go into higher education, come out, find employment and enjoy the benefits of it, and I welcome the expansion in relevant areas of education. But I am also told by university lecturers whom I know, mostly in the new universities, that they are being obliged to accept students that they do not want, that they do not believe should be there. They are under pressure within departments to provide qualifications that they do not believe the students deserve. If that is the case, why should we set a target that will push more people down a tube where, at the end, there is discontent among some students and lecturers?
	I cannot understand the logic of a system where university lecturers are saying, "It is very difficult. We have these departments and want to build them up but, yes, we have reservations about all these young people coming in. But that is the way things are at the moment; at some stage in the future it will all change".
	Another aspect that I find very worrying is what is going on today under the British apprenticeship scheme arrangements. The Conservative government in the mid-1990s introduced the modern apprenticeship scheme and the Labour Government very wisely developed it and built it into a major programme. I have followed that programme with some interest—indeed, I tabled some Questions recently, which my noble friend answered—but the statistics are very worrying. They show that nearly half of all young people leave modern apprenticeship programmes. Why are they leaving?
	Yes, the other half go out into the world and no doubt develop their skills, as the noble Baroness said, and go on to take HNDs, degrees, and maybe postgraduate work as well—but why are they leaving? I shall tell you why. The pressure is on to increase the numbers going into apprenticeship training. That is all very well, but the intake of those going into apprenticeship training is being denuded of the very people who, years ago, provided our skills base and who, in my former constituency, run the companies that today are producing the wealth of the nation. Many of the companies in my former constituency of Workington in Cumbria are run by former apprentices, the present day equivalents of whom may well be diverted at the age of 18 or 19 into taking higher educational courses in subjects about which, in a matter of only a few years, they will say, "Why the hell did I bother? Why should I be engaged in this? I made a mistake when I was younger".
	There is a responsibility to make sure that that does not happen. We are spoiling our apprenticeship programmes by diluting the currency and quality of the people who are being absorbed because others are being sucked into a regime which will bring them into debt. Many of them will regret going into the system that is currently being established. I am very sorry to say this to my noble friend, for whom I have great respect. I know that many of my colleagues in the House of Commons have immense respect for her and the work that she does, but I believe that this is the worst Bill introduced by the Labour Government since their election in 1997. I deeply regret that we have to debate it today.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: While I do not go as far as the Scottish judge who used the phrase that a change for the better was a contradiction in terms, I share the conservatism of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in some of the comments that he has made. That said—I go back to 1979—I always thought it was churlish of the present Prime Minister when he said in the run-up and aftermath to the 1997 general election, "Education, education, education" and criticised the previous government for their administration of the schools, that he did not give them credit for the extraordinary expansion in entry to higher education which occurred in the 18 years in which we were in power. When we came into power in 1979, we inherited a participation rate of one in eight for those aged between 18 and 21—the figure originally quoted in my noble friend's proposed new clause. The rate was of course transformed during the course of the next 18 years.
	In the early 1980s, after the Government had frozen university numbers, there was a significant growth in public sector higher education. As my noble friend Lady Perry said, the unit of resource in the public sector of higher education in the early 1990s steadily fell as a consequence. Then, when public sector higher education was released from the local authorities, it underwent a further, massive explosion, with huge consequences for the unit of resource.
	There were further consequences. In the early 1990s, the Government took the decision—I was unhappy about it and I know that my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking had his own misgivings—to translate polytechnics and other institutes of higher education into universities. On the basis that if the new universities could manage with a lower unit of resource, so could the older universities, the Treasury cut the unit of resource for the older universities as well. That had a minor, and incidental, consequence in your Lordships' House about two years ago, when some of my noble friends were resisting the introduction of auxiliary constables under the Police Act. I remember quoting exactly what I have just said about what happened to the unit of resource in the old universities in the early 1990s. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, memorably said in reply that that was entirely in line with his experience—that if it were possible for the Treasury to thwart and kill any good new idea at birth, it would take the opportunity. He then, memorably, got into trouble with the Treasury for having said it. However, because of what happened to the unit of resource in higher education in the 1990s, I support my noble friend's new clause vehemently.
	I have one question born of ignorance for the Minister. When did the age cohort of 18 to 21, which was originally quoted by my noble friend in his new clause, give way to the age cohort of 18 to 30 as the figure that we would use for measurement purposes? What effect has that change had on the figures for part-time and mature student recruitment, which was one of the glories of our system—only shared with the United States—when our 18 to 21 figures were being unfavourably compared with other OECD countries?

Baroness Blackstone: I had not intended to speak in this debate, because I know that my noble friends on the Front Bench want to get on. However, I must respond to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours.
	He admitted to being reactionary. He said it and I agree: he was. I had thought earlier in the debate that we would have some consensus on all sides of the Committee about the need for more graduates in our economy. We need to provide young people with the opportunity to reach their potential and go into higher education. I do not accept for one minute what my noble friend has just said about the quality of what is being provided nor what he said about the ability of the majority of young people who gain university places to benefit from doing so. Of course, some will fall by the wayside, but I remind him that the drop-out rates in UK universities are the lowest in the world bar those in Japan. We have a rather good record of retaining students in our higher education system.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was a little unfair on the Prime Minister in suggesting that he had never given credit to the previous government for expanding higher education. I believe that he did. I know that my right honourable friend David Blunkett did so as well, and I certainly did when I was the Minister who had responsibility for higher education. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is nodding his head in agreement. However, we did say that insufficient funding was provided to back that expansion. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who was involved with it, would accept that it would have been good if the Treasury could have been persuaded to provide more funding. In the future, if we are to expand higher education further, we must of course try to ensure that the resources are there to make it really work.
	In that sense, I am in some agreement with what I think lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. We are in Committee and we should really focus on the amendment rather than go into the subject of apprenticeships, which is not part of the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that apprenticeships are important and should be developed and expanded. However, I do not agree that there are not enough young people among the next 50 per cent who will not go into higher education with the potential to do well in apprenticeships. He was being far too gloomy about that.
	I have no idea what the Minister will say about this amendment. The first part of it seems to be quite helpful, but it would not make much sense to legislate for an inquiry into the impact on the economy of the 50 per cent target. Hundreds of reports have been written on the economic advantages of investment in higher education. Surely we do not need to legislate for another one. I am sure that further studies will be done as we move towards that target.
	Finally, I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, who suggested that it was wrong to set targets. We have too many targets—that is a mistake that the Government have made—but this target is a general one and we should not have a problem with it. If one has a target of this kind, which has been set by the Government, one is far more likely to secure resources from the Treasury to support it than if one aims merely for a general expansion. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, looks surprised by what I said, but he should look back at what happened during the government of which he was a member, when rapid expansion took place, but the money was not found because no clear target had been set. The Secretary of State was unable to go to the Chancellor and say, "Look, we've made a commitment here and we really do need to find additional funding".

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I thank the noble Baroness, but perhaps I may gently point out that I think she was the Minister for higher education who first introduced the idea of tuition fees. The unit of resource per student remained unchanged as a result. The additional resource that went into the system was pocketed by the Treasury, even though the Government had a target.

Baroness Blackstone: No, I do not accept that. The 1997-2001 government inherited plans in the Conservative government's Red Book for a reduction in the expenditure in universities; that is, the unit of resource was going to be further cut by, I think, 6.2 per cent. The Government were able to reduce those "efficiency savings"—a term used by the Treasury—to 2 per cent as had been recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. Additional government funds were provided. One could argue that perhaps they were not enough, but it is not true that a simple balancing act was done between the extra money that came in from fee income and what was provided by the public purse.

Lord Quirk: While I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that there is little point in trying to institute an inquiry into the impact on the economy of the 50 per cent target, it would be highly relevant to have an inquiry into its impact on the economy of the universities. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. Of course, this is not a suitable point at which to discuss part-time students. However, part-time students are relevant to that target, because universities are being encouraged, and will be financially helped, to increase their numbers of full-time students, but they will not be encouraged to increase their numbers of part-time students.
	Just as it has been mentioned that EU applications will affect the fulfilment of the target within universities, so also a decline in the number of part-time students—which might be encouraged by the legislation which we have in front of us—will affect that target. When I say it will affect the applications by part-time students, of course the Government will say, "No, part-time students are not affected by this". But they will be affected.
	Whether the Universities UK acknowledges this or not, universities up and down the country cannot afford to go on charging the same fees for part-time study as they do at the moment. It is much more likely, as has been announced in the University of Leeds, for example, that they will seek out pari passu increase, so that they will be charging £1,500 a head for part-time students. The University of Leeds has demonstrated that this will mean that many students currently doing part-time courses—sometimes with the help of their employers—will no longer be able to do so.
	It is perfectly possible that the Government will be able to reply convincingly that some part-time students will get additional help. I know this is not the point of the debate to be discussing part-time students, but it is relevant in connection with targets. Some part-time students will indeed get help, but the point of growth—the point that we surely wish to encourage in the development of higher education with this major segment of part-time education—is the people that are going to be disadvantaged by this particular target.

Lord Sewel: I hope the Minister in replying to the debate on this amendment will address whether in fact the amendment is capable of being implemented. The amendment is phrased throughout in terms of the United Kingdom. There is a real sense in which the higher education system is a United Kingdom system, but the fact is that higher education is devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive.
	I wonder whether the requirements placed on the Secretary of State by the amendment would be capable of being carried out by him, when he has no locus in terms of higher education in Scotland—and, I think, very limited locus in terms of higher education in Wales. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State would be able to do what the amendment asks and requires him to do, and in that in case it would be a fundamentally flawed amendment.

Lord Eatwell: I made the plea in our debate on Monday that the resource being generated by the increase in fees should not be spent over and over again. There has emerged a consensus in this debate that any expansion should be accompanied by resource. Will the Minister acknowledge when she replies to the debate that the increase in fees is intended to attack under-funding of universities as currently constituted, and not to fund the expansion that is being discussed? How will the expansion be funded?

Lord Wilson of Dinton: I, too, endorse the question of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and add a word very briefly on the question of targetry. We now have quite a lot of experience of targetry over the past few years, and we can now learn that it is a much more difficult activity than perhaps used to be thought.
	There are three particular dangers which I think are relevant in this debate. First, if you set a target and pursue it too rigidly, you may well find that you distort other behaviour and that other things get lost in the process. Second, if you do not provide the resources, or resources are not available, for meeting the target, you have the law of unintended consequences—other things happen which you have not foreseen but which do damage. We have heard some of the dangers now, such as the effect on quality of teaching, the danger of drop-outs and the growth of debt.
	The third danger is that if you meet your targets, you sometimes actually miss your objectives. You sometimes find that you hit the target but the thing you were trying to achieve in broad terms is not actually what you have achieved. I hope the Minister will address these issues when she sums up.

Lord Baker of Dorking: I remember the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, being in the Civil Service on the expenditure side when we Ministers went in to negotiate our expenditure. I seem to recollect that he was not entirely against targets in those days. As he is now against them—

Lord Wilson of Dinton: I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that I am saying, "we have learnt".

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Baker of Dorking: "A Daniel come to judgment!" I quite agree.
	I am against targets of all sorts in higher education, or in further education. When I was Secretary of State for Education, I did not give targets. Right at the end of my time there, I made a speech at Lancaster in which I forecast—it was not a target—that by 2000, university participation of the 18 year-old cohort, would go to about 33.3 per cent. It went to 35 per cent.
	I did not set that as a target. What I said was that if you create the conditions within the universities—and in the polytechnics as well—you will get the sufficient demand welling up from 16 and 18 year-olds. What is really striking over the last 20 years in higher education history is that many young people at 16 believe that education does not come to an end there. It is probably one of the biggest social changes, and it does not necessarily come to an end at 18 either. They want themselves to go on, because they are sensible people and they know that if they get trained or get an additional skill they will get a better job and do better in life. Therefore, you have got this welling-up.
	I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said. I did not agree with his final comment that this is the worst Bill the Government have introduced—there is quite a long candidate list for that particular description. However, I do believe that people are tempted into higher education who could be better off in further education. This is one of the reasons why I was the last Secretary of State to defend the boundary line between polytechnics and universities. The polytechnics were doing an excellent job, and I tried to elevate their status and support them as much as I could as Secretary of State. They had a noble and dignified role in the educational structure of our country. However, they were very worried about their status. If you go to the universities now, you will find that more than 50 per cent of the courses are vocational, and in some of the universities as high as 70 per cent are vocational.
	To sum up, I think the Government are wrong to set a target of 50 per cent. Higher participation is going to come about as long as the universities are properly funded, as long as they have an ability to draw funds. This is why I support the Government's thrust on fees, as I believe the Minister knows, because this gives the universities an additional source of income, and that is what they need.
	I am therefore against all such control. I believe the system should be free in itself. Students should have a student entitlement—a voucher, if you like—for arts, science and medicine. They should shop around themselves—that is the state's support to the student—and decide which course they want to go to. The universities should be free to select which children they want, to teach what they want, to appoint who they want and to charge what they want.

Baroness Blackstone: I want very quickly to respond to one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. Some of what he has just said about 18 year-olds is probably true, but this target is not about 18 year-olds. It is about young people aged between 18 and 30. The vast majority of the additional numbers coming in will not be 18 year-olds going on to conventional courses in universities; they will in fact be 24, 25 and 26 year-olds, doing highly vocational foundation degrees which are being done not in universities but in FE colleges. We should remember that and bear it in mind when we think about the meaning and implications of this target.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his clever amendment. I accept what he has said about the unintended part in relation to the 18 to 21 age group—which helped me to cross out quite a lot of my speaking notes—and his wish for it to involve 18 to 30 year-olds. My only regret is that this is worthy of a longer debate in your Lordships' House—perhaps of two and a half or five hours. Certainly I would like to contribute for a great deal of time on lots of the issues which have been quite rightly raised by noble Lords. I shall confine myself in some degree to the amendment, not least because it is my job to try to make progress in Committee on the Bill, but I recognise the sentiments. I urge any Members of the Committee who feel that I fail to do justice to their comments, or that the passion with which they have spoken has not been recognised, to put the matter down for further debate in the House. We could do it justice, with so many noble Lords who have such wide-ranging experience on it.
	Let me begin by talking about the wonderful new word "targetry", which I did not know until today. I am very pleased to now have it in my arsenal of words. Let me be very clear: the 50 per cent target is for the Government, not institutions. I know that Members of the Committee have made that point, but it is very important. The target is working towards 50 per cent for 18 year-olds to 30 year-olds, which picks up the point made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but I have with me the statement made by Margaret Hodge regarding the Government's intentions. She said:
	"The Government's policy is to increase participation so that by the end of the decade, 50 per cent of 18 to 30 year olds have the opportunity to experience higher education".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/02; col. 95W.]
	It is not a move in a direction or a trend, but a specific and clear target.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am referring to the White Paper, which is not a change but a clarification—if the noble Lord wishes—about what we want. The White Paper is published by the Government about their intentions. It is very important that, if we read words that an individual Minister says, we remember that we do not know what the debate or context were. It is very difficult to be as clear as one would wish. Therefore, if I return to the text of the White Paper, I believe that I shall give clarity to the Committee about precisely what the Government meant. It is on that that we should rely in this context.
	I make no apology for having ambition in the world of higher education to ensure that those able to benefit from it do so. However, we are not holding individual institutions or universities to account for that target. It is the aspiration of the Government. I am very pleased to say that we are moving towards that aspiration. The figures that we have for 2002–03 are that 44 per cent of that cohort is involved in higher education. Regardless of what the noble Lord said about the difference between Scottish and English schools, I think with tongue slightly in cheek, some credit should be given to the education system, which has improved. Members of the Committee will have heard me say many times that, in our primary system, the school that was best in 1997 was average in 2002–03. That is an important aspect of why young people now have the confidence and ability to go forward to university.
	Robert Reich is often quoted in the House. I have had the privilege of listening to his work. Indeed, in the late 1980s, I was involved in global scenario planning. We looked very carefully, from outside of the government sector, into what the world would look like and where our position in it ought to be. It is very clear that we wish to position ourselves with a highly skilled workforce. To compete appropriately in a global economy, we need to make sure that we have the best possible skilled workforce.
	Part of that skill is within our graduates. Evidence shows that, of the 13.5 million jobs expected to be filled by 2012, 6.8 million will require graduates. It is important to look at our place in the world and in the OECD countries. Many other countries already have higher participation rates than the UK. My first assertion to the Committee is that it is the job of government to look across the world economy, and to make some ambition a reality for where we wish to see our universities fitting into it and where we believe that the skills ought to be.
	Many Members of the Committee have great experience of higher education from their work in the university sector, so I do not need to remind them of the benefits that come to the individuals from such education. Not least is the intrinsic value of the education, but they are more likely to be healthy, to vote in a democracy and to participate in our society. That should not be underestimated for our population.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and my noble friend Lady Blackstone said—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also referred to it on earning and learning—we are also thinking around the relevance and importance of foundation degrees. They are vocational. I shall need to write to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on at least the first of the specific questions that he asked, to be absolutely clear about the change and when it came in. However, it is important not to mix up vocational and academic. Those doing medicine, veterinary science or whatever are pursuing vocational degrees. We sometimes try to juxtapose the two kinds of experience as though they are somehow very different. It is not as straightforward as that, but foundation degrees are critical. Last year, 12,000 people studied for foundation degrees. By 2006, there will be 50,000 places. It is worth saying that the target is for full-time and part-time students; we are not simply saying that everything has to be in one direction.
	Modern apprenticeships are critical. There are 250,000 young people on apprenticeships at the moment. About a quarter of all school leavers start an apprenticeship by the age of 21. Notwithstanding the comments made, we could have a separate debate—I would look forward to it—on apprenticeships. We are not talking about either/or, but both. We need to ensure that our young people have the opportunity to pursue the course appropriate for them. It is not our job to cap ambition in any way.
	It is also worth remembering that, for those who wish to go into vocational trades—plumbers are usually mentioned at some point in our debates—we need to look at the levels of qualifications. I believe—I shall stand corrected on it if necessary—that if one is looking for a CORGI-registered plumber to fix one's central heating system, one is looking at level 3 qualifications in any event. We should recognise and support people being able, within their trades, to do more complex work and to get the benefit of pursuing their trades to a higher education level.
	The amendment, with the correction given by the noble Lord, is about a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the "target proportion". We provide details of projected student numbers, together with information on planned institutional expenditure and student funding. There are already a number of opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise that work, such as the annual departmental report, where we set out planned spending and past performance. That is laid before Parliament and considered by the Education and Skills Committee.
	The department is subject to regular scrutiny on value for money and efficiency by the National Audit Office. Those are important ways in which we are scrutinised. Examining the policies set out in the White Paper, the Select Committee invited a wide range of witnesses to participate and ask questions, including representatives from the universities and student representatives, and I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also participated in that discussion. Within the system already, real efforts have been made to make sure that there is parliamentary scrutiny of the right kind.
	The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, set out a question, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, about affordability. That was right and understandable. The intention of the Government is to inject real funds. That is what the Bill is about. It is based on background that Members of the Committee know very well by now—the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—about how one gets a university system that is able to function, grow and develop. However, it is also important that universities be very clear that they wish the funding to give them flexibility.
	The issue is not about expansion, as asked about by my noble friend Lord Eatwell; it is about giving universities the flexibility to be able to decide on what they wish to spend the resources. They might wish to improve academic salaries, an issue that will be of great importance on the fifth day in Committee. They may wish to expand, or have other kinds of investment. Our purpose is to try to improve the position of universities financially, through the Bill and the increases that we have already indicated that we shall be making. Members of the Committee will recognise, as I do, that we all have more to do, but those are important steps.
	I shall repeat the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said in his Budget Statement that,
	"our university and student finance reforms will be matched by rising real-terms funding, to progress towards the 50 per cent target for students in higher education that would give thousands more students with qualifications the opportunities that they deserve. The settlement will maintain the level of real-terms student funding per head, and ensure that universities receive in full the benefit of additional revenue from the Government's higher education reforms".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/04; col. 335.]
	That is as plain as it can be, and I am pleased to be able to read that out for the record. We absolutely accept that we need to make sure that we have the right kind of scrutiny in Parliament. We believe that we have that. We also have made statements about ensuring where the funding is coming from and indeed, making sure that the Chancellor's words are noted.
	Noble Lords focused too on the issues of the European Union and the accession countries. It is worth saying that, in looking forward, we are monitoring very carefully and working very closely with UCAS to see what actually happens. Our projections are that we will see a one-off increase of about 8 per cent.
	It is worth also saying that coming to the UK to study is not a cheap option. We do not provide support for maintenance costs, so those coming here need to meet those costs themselves. It is important that noble Lords realise what it is that those coming here will actually be receiving.
	I hope I have addressed most of the points that have been raised, with apologies where I might not have done so. I will reflect on what has been said and follow up by correspondence any not dealt with to the satisfaction of noble Lords. We are committed to this government target. It is based on looking across the global economy and our place within it. It is based on looking at our colleagues in the OECD and seeing where we think our universities, working with us, will hope to see that expansion. We recognise that it is about working with the sector to ensure that, as we develop our plans, we are working as allies to support our students.
	It is not about saying that those who go to university are one group and that those who do not are another. It is about recognising, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, recognised, that the strategy for 14 to 19 year-olds and the work of Mike Tomlinson is critical in this. It is also about ensuring that we have an economy that is fit for the 21st century. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: We have had a very interesting debate. I am slightly puzzled by what the Minister had to say about whether the Government do indeed have a target, or whether the target is an aspiration, or whether it is something between an aspiration and a target. This is rather an important point. My own position, like that of my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, is that we should not have a target, and that has been the position of the Opposition. I for one will cheer the Minister if the Government are moving their position from what it was declared to be in a Written Answer by Mrs Hodge only 18 months ago.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will read exactly what is in the White Paper, which I believe is the situation:
	"We will continue to increase participation towards 50 per cent of those aged 18 to 30, mainly through two-year work-focused foundation degrees".

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am grateful to the Minister, but Mrs Hodge said:
	"The Government's policy is to increase participation so that by the end of the decade, 50 per cent of 18 to 30 year olds have the opportunity to experience higher education".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/02; col. 95W.]
	Is that no longer the Government's policy? When I read that out to the noble Baroness, she said that the Government's policy is set out in the White Paper. What is the position?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The policy is set in the White Paper. One can take different ministerial statements out of different contexts. I do not know the written response that the noble Lord has. I think that there is very little difference between what my right honourable friend said and what I have just repeated from the White Paper. But if the noble Lord is confused then I will be categoric that it is the White Paper that sets out the Government's policy.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I realise that in this House people are very courteous, but if I may gently suggest to the Minister that it does not sound to me as if it is me who is confused. I thought that the Government had a clear policy. The noble Baroness has quoted from page seven of the White Paper, but on page 57 it states:
	"National economic imperatives support our target to increase participation in higher education towards 50 per cent of those aged 18 to 30 by the end of the decade"
	Now that is not an aspiration; that is not "moving towards"; that is a specific target which is meant to be reached. I think it is extremely important that we are clear about whether the Government still have that target. If they have that target then I think they are mistaken, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking spelled out. But if the Government's position is changing then I for one would welcome that.
	It has been a curious debate. I suspect that if we were to test the opinion of the Committee the amendment might well find considerable support. I was very struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, had to say about the wording. She wanted more emphasis on the vocational aspects. Perhaps it might be better for us to return to this subject at a later stage. The noble Baroness and I might be able to find common cause on this matter, along with many others who share the concern that the spirit is willing but that the flesh, in the form of the Treasury, has proved particularly weak.
	I was very struck by the strength of feeling on all sides of the Committee on the issue of targets and whether they work. Perhaps I may tell a story against myself. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland, my wife had an unfortunate accident while carrying one of my Red Boxes upstairs and she had to go to casualty at St. Thomas's Hospital in London. The following day I went to the tea-room and said, "A funny thing happened to me yesterday. I took Susan to the hospital, and we were seen within three minutes, but then sat there for five hours". One of the Back-Benchers said: "Which planet are you Ministers living on? You should realise you were being seen immediately to meet the targets, and the manager of the hospital is probably being given a bonus on the strength of it."
	That is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was talking about in terms of the law of unintended consequences and the dangers of targets. I hope that the Minister, having listened to speeches from around the Committee from noble Lords who are so directly involved in this area, might say to her colleagues that perhaps there is some wisdom in moving away from the Government's position on targets. Listening to her own remarks, perhaps she has already taken that on board.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: At the risk of the anecdote getting out of hand, as the former chair of a health authority, the reason for that would have been to assess whether the noble Lord's wife was seriously injured, and then determine whether she should be triaged.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Strangely enough, that is what my officials told me at the time, but it did appear that the patient was seen within 15 minutes of going to hospital. But being seen is not the same thing as being treated. Institutions, if offered targets, rewards and resources on a particular basis, will organise themselves to meet the targets. That is sometimes not the same thing as was intended by those who set the targets.
	I was hugely amused by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He and I have been sparring partners in the past. He began by describing himself as a reactionary, saying that he felt very strongly about these issues as a democratic socialist. I think I must be turning into a democratic socialist, because I agreed with almost every word he had to say. One point on which both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, laid emphasis is the issue of vocational education and apprenticeships and people not being cheated into doing the wrong thing and being landed with a very substantial financial commitment. The section of the White paper quoted by the noble Baroness actually lays emphasis on these so-called two-year foundation degrees.
	I do not know whether the Minster is aware that there is actually great pressure to phase out the HNC and HND qualifications which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and to replace them with these two-year foundation degrees. So here is another example of the law of unintended consequences of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson: that in order to meet the targets, we actually have people destroying the very courses which everyone agrees attract so much sympathy both in the House and elsewhere.

Baroness Blackstone: It is a matter of a name change. HNDs and HNCs are higher education, so the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is wrong in suggesting that foundation degrees have been introduced in order to reach the target and that there is an unintended consequence. When the decision was made, it was clear that HNDs and HNCs would be rebranded as foundation degrees. They are part of higher education, although they are undertaken mainly in further education colleges.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: After the noble Baroness's rather unkind attack on her noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, and, as I am supporting him, I suppose I deserve that. The noble Baroness said that it is a matter of a name change, and "vocational" versus "academic" is a matter of a name change. The point which I and her noble friend are trying to make is that there is too much emphasis on the academic for people who are not academic and not enough emphasis on the vocational. That is at the root of the failure of the Government's policy.
	My noble friend Lord Brooke lamented the abolition of the binary line. I was in government when that was done. In politics, it is always a mistake to say that you have made a mistake, but on reflection it was a mistake and we are where we are now. Only the other day north of the Border, the Scottish Executive announced that it was to abolish the term "university" and to manage the funding councils. It seems that history is about to repeat itself in an undesirable way.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, kindly brought us to the central issue of discovering whether this really is a target. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and despite the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I was not setting out to argue that there was something inherently better about Scotland as compared with England, although I could well do so. The fact that education has been funded 25 per cent better per head, thanks to the generosity of English taxpayers, has probably been a factor in the improved performance, although it has not been improved by 25 per cent.
	When the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, counselled me not to make comparisons between Scottish and English schools and suggested that there had been a change, I was not arguing that English schools had improved or that Scottish schools were worse. That would be a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Parliament to account for.
	The noble Lord, Lord Winston, indicated his huge sympathy for the amendment and he made a key point; that we should be concerned about quality and not about quantity and concerned about putting round pegs in round holes.
	My noble friend Lady Carnegy said that if the expansion was too rapid, graduates would not be able to get jobs. That has been a feature of the more rapid expansion in Scotland.
	The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, was concerned to have an inquiry into the effect on the economy. Perhaps we could get our heads together on a suitable wording at a later date. There will be an opportunity in our considerations today to pick up some of the important points made about part-time students.
	I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who indicated he was sympathetic. He made the point about the money being spent several times. Wherever I go, every letter that arrives seems to spend the money several times. The Minister's response was a little disappointing because she did not answer his specific question about how the resources are to be deployed and whether expansion will be funded separately. She focused on what the Chancellor had said, but I do not believe that in any way he made that kind of commitment.
	It is a matter to which we shall return. I began my introduction of the amendment by saying that we did not want to have a wide-ranging debate. We have had a wide-ranging debate because I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that this is one of the worst Bills brought forward by the Government. We have had a wide-ranging debate because there are far too many loose ends around this Bill which are not being addressed. I look forward to the Minister and her colleagues addressing them as the Bill continues its passage through the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Before Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
	"NATIONAL BURSARY SCHEME
	(1) The Secretary of State shall undertake to pay by way of bursary the totality of the qualifying fees, including both the basic amount and the higher amount, payable by a student admitted to and following a qualifying course at a publicly funded university in England or Wales who is a member of a specified group which is under-represented in higher education.
	(2) In this section "specified group" in relation to students following any qualifying course means students resident in the United Kingdom whose own income and parental and spousal income when assessed by means of a means test as set out in student support regulations is less than a figure prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State."

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The amendment is about access as much as it is about funding. I want to stress the point that the threshold I have in mind is £15,000. In other words, it is proposed that students from families whose income is less than £15,000 should not be obliged to pay tuition fees.
	Curiously enough, although the Bill is involved with access it does little to deal with access directly. We have complex measures of checks and balances, universities are expected to provide bursaries, and there is £300 here and another sum there. However, those of us who have experience of university admissions are aware that for financial reasons many students are deterred even from applying to university.
	Many of us who are in full agreement with the Government's views and have advocated them ourselves would like to see a higher intake of students from lower income families into higher education. The struggle is to obtain the applications, which is why so many resent the observations made, for instance, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Laura Spence affair. The problem is to get the applications from the lower-income-group students to the universities.
	Nothing could be more of a deterrent to students to know that they are going to acquire a substantial loan because they have to borrow to meet the tuition fees. I believe that it was a retrograde step when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is in her place, for the first time in post-war years broke the Robbins convention that tuition fees were paid for.
	I shall not go down the path of the Liberal Democrats—this amendment is not intended to be a wrecking amendment. In many ways, I have much sympathy with the view that tuition fees across the board should still be paid for, even though maintenance should be dealt with otherwise. But that matter has been extensively debated in another place and it is not my intention today to introduce what might be regarded as a wrecking amendment.
	However, it is an extraordinary transformation when up until 1998 all students from the UK who were properly qualified obtained state studentships and their fees were paid. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, gave us a 30 degree turn. Now we are turning another 150 degrees and all students are expected to pay top-up fees, even though there are arrangements for loans.
	However, anyone who has discussed these matters with students from lower-income families knows that many of them are what is described today as "debt averse" and many students are wise to be so. Indeed, those students from lower-income families who aspire to go to university, who are prudent students and who would rather live by the rubric "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", are very much troubled by the obligation to take a substantial loan.
	My amendment would do something about that. It is a modest step only, but in cases of students from families with an income of less than £15,000, it would cut through the Bill's monumental architecture of loans, Directors of Fair Access and so on. I am sure that if the appointed Director of Fair Access finds that all students with a familial income of less than £15,000 do not have to take out a loan as the fee is effectively waived, he or she will be very happy, as much of his or her work will have been achieved.
	Moreover, if the amendment were agreed, I should be astonished if it did not find very substantial favour in another place. It seems iniquitous that, until just five years ago, Jimmy qualified for university, got his state studentship and then his fees were paid. Now the converse is the case in this monumentally retrogressive legislation.
	I have spoken about admissions; I am surprised that we have come so far. I said that this was not a wrecking amendment, but I would like to make clear my intention, first, that the Government would pay for these bursaries. I do not intend that they should somehow be siphoned off from the universities themselves. Secondly, I was impressed by the remarks made at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, about part-time students. Nothing in the amendment excludes part-time students; I intend that it should include them. If the amendment is put to the vote and finds favour with the Committee today, there will be time to introduce any necessary supplementary amendments. I doubt that any would be necessary, as it is perfectly clear that the amendment would apply to part-time students also.
	I have said nothing about maintenance; nor do I expect to say anything on it. If I were rewriting the Bill, I might well ensure that it was written into the legislation that students in this very underprivileged group would also receive maintenance in some similar way. But one can only go so far in an amendment, and my intention has been to keep this one simple.
	I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to the wording of the amendment. I have found it difficult to implement my intentions clearly. I have had to say that the intention is the £15,000 threshold; that is how the amendment reads. I should also mention that I have drawn on the wording of Clause 31(4) when I refer to the phrase,
	"members of groups which, at the time when the plan is approved, are under-represented in higher education".
	I have had to define that. It is not defined in the context of the Director of Fair Access. I would be very interested to hear what the Director of Fair Access will do about groups defined in other ways, such as ethnic minorities. I would be very happy for my amendment to apply to ethnic minorities, but I have tried to keep it simple and have set out to define such groups. The definition in the amendment is purely in financial terms, as I have already said. I have followed the wording elsewhere in the Bill and tried in that way to express the intention in the amendment.
	I do not believe that my amendment conflicts with Amendment No. 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, with which it is grouped. The noble Lord speaks about a national bursary scheme, aspects of which might be funded through the universities. I have discussed the matter with him. As I understand it, the noble Lord does not disagree with me that, so far as concerns the threshold in the amendment, the intention is that the finances should be drawn not from universities but from the Treasury. It should increase the overall unit of resource.
	That brings a second benefit: those universities expected under the Bill to set aside a significant proportion of their fee income to provide bursaries under the Bill's very complex architecture will be at least saved the expense of setting aside those finances for students in this most underprivileged group, up to the £15,000 threshold. That input will be by increasing the unit of resource.
	I very much look forward to hearing noble Lords' responses. I was so discourteous at an earlier stage as to refer to a very distinguished noble Lord opposite as complacent. I withdrew that remark and will not repeat it again. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth commented, Universities UK sometimes seems keener to support the Government than it is to support the universities—in earlier stages of the Bill, at any rate. The term "complaisant"—I shall not make the same mistake twice—might well be assigned to Universities UK. I have had the privilege of seeing its briefing on these amendments. I can anticipate—though, I hope, not inappropriately—what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, will say. I am a little shocked that Universities UK does not at once see the merit of the amendment, because it should be regarded as progressive rather than retrogressive.
	The amendment, if agreed, would be welcomed by many in another place, including many government supporters. I suggest that if the amendment is agreed in this Committee it is unlikely to be brought back to the House of Lords after a vote in another place. I cannot imagine how the Government can justify the abolition of state studentships—that is what we are talking about—for students whose familial income is less than £15,000.
	I do not feel the need to go any further, as that would be to call into jeopardy the structure of the Bill. This is not intended as a wrecking amendment but it is deeply critical of the Government. They have gone so far down the course initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that they will now impose a burden of debt on even this underprivileged group of students, who are most in need of encouragement in access terms. I beg to move.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My name is also attached to the amendment. I should like to add my thoughts only briefly, as most of the points have been covered so well by my noble friend Lord Renfrew.
	We welcome the Government's proposal to include some bursary assistance for the maintenance of students in the very poorest categories. The amendment is in no way intended to remove from universities the duty being laid upon them to continue to offer a proportion of their fee income for bursaries to students.
	This additional proposal is very much welcomed by the new, post-1992 universities and supported by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE). The post-1992 universities and NATFHE have made the point strongly that there will be inequality in the funding of students if it relies entirely on the universities' contribution from their fee. Universities that charge less than £2,700 in fees under the Government's proposals will not have any obligation to provide bursaries. I am sure that they will want to do so, but they will inevitably have less money with which to do it. The wealthier universities, which are also the ones most likely to be able to charge the full £3,000 fee and still recruit, will be able to provide generous bursaries, whereas poorer universities, which take in the majority of poorer students, will have less funding with which to provide bursaries. That is inequitable for the students.
	I want to see poor students guaranteed the same size of bursary, no matter which university they go to and even if they pay slightly lower fees. The only way to do that is to have a national scheme that guarantees the same amount for every student. I support the amendment wholeheartedly, and I hope that the Committee will do so as well.

Lord Rix: My amendment, Amendment No. 86, is grouped with Amendment No. 37, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, so I hope that this is an appropriate time to intervene. I shall speak in support of the noble Lord's amendment, and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 86. Both amendments are about bursary schemes, and both are capable of standing by themselves.
	The principal tasks of universities have been, are and will be teaching and research. Additionally, for centuries, universities have provided financial support for students by means informal as well as formal, but that is not one of their principal tasks, nor should it become so. I have been asked whether my amendment proposes that universities should be banned from continuing to make their own arrangements for such support. That is neither my intention nor the effect of my amendment. My amendment would remove the possibility of the Director of Fair Access interfering in the particular arrangements that universities make for themselves, in order that the Government may more naturally turn to the possibilities of making fair national arrangements.
	Since Beveridge, if not before, we have looked to the state to be the main provider of redress against financial inequalities, either directly or with the assistance of local government. That provides for fair and consistent treatment for all. The Government's proposals do not provide for fair and consistent treatment for all in the matter of bursaries. Rather, they inevitably lead to a situation in which students in similar circumstances receive different—perhaps significantly different—packages of support.
	Under the Government's arrangements, universities such as the University of East London, of which I am chancellor, may end up administering a small bursary of £300 to as many as 60 per cent of their students, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, said. Universities that have yet to make the progress in widening participation that East London has will be asked to do more. That inevitably means that the size of the bursary will vary from university to university. Elite universities will have a lot of money to spend and few students to spend it on. Universities with a widening participation mission will be able to spend less but will have many more deserving candidates for bursaries. Ability to pay is not even remotely matched to need to pay. That arises, not, as we are used to seeing, because some benefactor in the 18th century has created a fund that may be applied only to the sons of distressed Anglican clergy from Suffolk, but rather as a deliberate act of government policy.
	How can such a policy have been adopted by this Government? Has the spirit of Screaming Lord Sutch found sanctuary in the appropriately named Sanctuary Buildings in Great Smith Street? The Government have strongly defended their proposals, but I have yet to hear a government spokesman acknowledge that variable bursaries for similar students will be the outcome of their policy.
	We face the irony that a Bill designed to promote variable fees is likely to produce a near-universal standard fee of £3,000 a year but highly variable bursaries. It would be fairer, less costly and less open to fraud were the Government to take the 10 per cent of the extra fee income that, they suggest, universities should devote to bursaries and apply it themselves to student support, either through supplementing the reintroduced student grant arrangements or through a national bursary scheme of the sort proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn.
	The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, would secure a national bursary scheme. My amendment would allow for a national bursary scheme and remove a temptation from government to fall into the second-class policy solution of imposed variable bursary schemes. It is debatable, but there is perhaps a role for games of chance in our national life. If so, they should be confined to the likes of Lotto, not OFFA.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I shall use the debate on the amendment to draw attention to a matter that caused some confusion prior to Report in the other House. The department issued a press release that set out, in some detail in a table, the amount of assistance with living costs that was to be made available to families. I want to ask my noble friend a couple of questions about that. When I asked colleagues at the other end about the matter, no one knew the answer. There was general disagreement about whether my interpretation was correct; some agreed that it was, and some did not.
	The table says that no maintenance grant is available. Then, it says:
	"From September 2004: All those with family income less than £15,200 will get £1000 grants".
	That group is said to be,
	"around 30% of full time students".
	The table then says:
	"All those with family income between £15,201 and £21,185 will get a partial grant (around another 10% will benefit)".
	In other words, all those with family income under £21,185—I have added the two figures together—will get a grant of one form or another, the total figure being 40 per cent of full-time students. Is that the full 18-to-30 group, or is it only the 18-to-21 part? Many colleagues believe that it might be only the 18-to-21 group. If it is, they do not accept the figures.
	Can my noble friend tell us precisely what that refers to? Is it the lower group only? If it is, the press release is arguing that 30 per cent of all United Kingdom HE students between 18 and 31—including those in families in which two people are working—have a gross parental income of less than £15,000 a year. That is a ludicrous figure. I wonder whether we could have clarification today. It will influence what I might want to say when we come to the major debate on student fees.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I was involved in several discussions on the subject as chief executive of Universities UK. I declare that interest. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, chose to attack Universities UK for not representing the interests of universities. Although I agree that it is well-nigh impossible to get all 120 vice-chancellors or heads of institution to concur all the time, I can assure the noble Lord that the vast majority of vice-chancellors, including many from the post-92 institutions support the arguments in Universities UK's briefing.
	In our discussions, we considered several models for the best way of ensuring that students were properly supported, including a national bursary scheme. All the schemes that we considered had problems and would have raised objections from parts of the sector. Top-slicing income, which would be one way of achieving what the noble Lord suggests, would compromise the issue of additionality, which, I hope, we will return to. The idea that all universities should contribute to a central pot would limit the potential for universities to use bursaries in support of the recruitment efforts of individual higher education institutions. Under the current system, they can do so now.
	I think that, in his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, is suggesting full-fee support for poor students. A poor student will pay no contribution to fees while a student, and, even as a graduate, will repay the fees that they owe only when they can afford to do so, in the same way as any other students will, when they reach a certain level of income.
	The graduate contribution scheme, which is what the Government propose, allows us to shift our focus away from the cost of fees, which are not payable when a student is at university, to the cost of maintenance, which is. Does the noble Lord not agree that it is better to provide support for students to help them with their living costs and allow them to repay their fees only when they can afford to do so?

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend Lord Renfrew was not referring to the question of the effect on the poorest families of paying back later when someone has graduated. He was talking about an inducement for the poorest families to encourage their young people to go to university. This is about an incentive for young people. Many people in another place and I suspect here, are very worried about whether that inducement is contained in the Bill. My noble friend is talking about extra money from the taxpayer to provide that inducement.
	Some universities, the ones with a large number of people who will not have to pay anything back, will gain from the Bill. That was said at a meeting with Universities UK, which I attended. One vice-chancellor said that around 70 per cent of his students would not incur a debt in relation to fees. That was very interesting. However, surely this is about universities which are not in that position. It seemed to me that coming from the University of Cambridge my noble friend would understand very well the position of the poorest families who might have someone who would qualify for Cambridge and would benefit enormously from going there but would be completely put off by the prospect of incurring a debt. This is a very worthwhile amendment as an inducement for such people.

Lord Dearing: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for letting me off the charge of being complacent. He may be less satisfied with me today, but I shall do my best. I shall concentrate, if I may, on his amendment.
	It seems to me that we have to go back to basic principles. I begin with the principle that to be admitted to a university is a privilege that is not open to all citizens. It is open only to those who, by attitudes and standards of learning achieved as a young person, qualify for entry. In gaining entry they get benefits that are denied to most of our young people. First, they benefit from an enhancement in the quality of life they will have because of what higher education has given to them, which is precious. Secondly, research has shown that graduates are able to enter areas of employment which are less subject to unemployment than the generality and in most cases, not all, will have the prospect of higher earnings throughout life. So, whether the entrant comes from a poor or wealthy background, higher education confers benefits which are not available as a right, such as the National Health Service, to all citizens.
	Therefore, it is equitable to turn to young people after graduation, not before, and to say, on an income contingent basis, "We are looking to you to contribute something in return". That is a form of contribution, paid through the tax system. It is equitable to ask those young people whether from poor or rich backgrounds to contribute on an income-contingent basis. However—this is relevant to attracting students—that should be upfront money. The repayments are made afterwards. The upfront money needs to be for maintenance because their families cannot afford to support them in a way which more prosperous families can. That is the logical way to help young people from poor families, not by saying, "You should not have to contribute afterwards, but here is some money upfront".
	Perhaps the Government were not crafty enough, but they have not received credit for one thing they have done for those who want to promote access—I dare say all of us in this House belong to this club—and who want more people from poor backgrounds to come into further and higher education. The key to that is getting children to stay on at school after 16. We have a very low retention rate over the age of 16. The Government announced in the White Paper that they would provide grants of up to £1,500 per year for boys and girls of 16 plus to help with maintenance. That has given their families £3,000 which has not been available in the past and which is very relevant to encouraging them to stay on until 18 to obtain their two A-levels and GNVQs.
	The Government's package starts off by saying that they would provide £1,000 towards maintenance and £1,200 towards tuition fees. They increased the £1,000 to £1,500 so the £1,200 plus the £1,500 has become £2,700 upfront. It is said to those universities whose departments have chosen to go for the top level of fee, £3,000, "You must, as a minimum, grant a bursary of £300". So, a boy or girl from a poor home knows that they will be no worse off than they are at present. They will have come forward with an extra £1,500 per year in the previous two years and the terms of the loan scheme have been improved.
	The structure of the Government's proposals is right. It is fair and equitable to all young people in our society and is the right way to go. Although I may be seen as complacent, I hope very much that the noble Lord will see that it is based on the principle of equity and of encouraging access to our universities. I shall not comment on the standard bursary scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has already commented on that.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My rumbling stomach makes me reluctant to intervene and I shall be brief. I have been watching—I hope this is parliamentary language—the Forsyth/Ashton Punch and Judy show this week. I cannot declare an interest as a governor of Portsmouth University because I no longer hold that post, but the Board of Education of the Church of England has considered this area. When I first read the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I realised straightaway that it had very noble aspirations. However, unless I am totally mistaken, I think it will have the unintended consequence of causing unfairness when it wants to do the opposite; that is, it will provide everything for a few and much less for many others.
	On previous occasions I have highlighted the need for more attention to be given to the cut-off point in the Bill. However, I am not sure that the amendment will achieve what it intends to deliver. Therefore, after much careful thought, I am unable to support it.

Lord Winston: Like the right reverend Prelate, I, too, missed my breakfast and I will be extremely brief. I always seem to miss my breakfast when coming to this place. I feel very strongly that universities like the one I represent as Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam might be at a disadvantage with a national bursary scheme of this kind. There is always the possibility that the university might end up having to pay bursaries from its own funds. It seems to me that a university which may have 50 per cent of its students funded would be at a very severe disadvantage. The money would be spent on bursaries and not on the education of its students. Therefore, we need to consider the amendment very carefully.

Baroness Blackstone: I should like to follow up on what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has just said. Essentially there are two choices. You can say to students from poor families that you do not expect them to contribute to tuition fees, but that you do expect them to take out loans for maintenance—the scheme introduced by the Labour Government in 1998. Or you can say, as the current Labour Government are going to do, that you are going to give students loans for fees because you want them to contribute to tuition costs; that they will only have to pay them back on an income-contingent basis after they graduate; and that you will give them bursaries for maintenance. There are merits in both routes. The Government have decided to go down the second of those routes.
	It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is slightly confusing the incomes of parents, who did have to contribute under the old scheme if their incomes were above a certain level but not if they were not, with the later incomes of graduates. I think that we need to be absolutely clear that there is a distinction. So I am not able to support the noble Lord's amendment.
	However, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, a question that he can perhaps reply to later. This morning we have talked a lot about unintended consequences. I believe that there is an unintended consequence of what he proposes—that, were the amendment to be agreed to, the British taxpayer would have to provide support for European Union students, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said are going to come into this country in large numbers. The cost of that would be considerable because, under the Treaty of Rome, EU students have to be treated like home students with respect to fees. They do not have to be treated in the same way regarding maintenance. We should be very careful about that matter. That alone makes the amendment very risky and dangerous.
	However, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I am sorry that the amendments have been grouped together, as they really are about very different things. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is talking about the requirement that universities charging more than £2,700 should contribute to bursaries for poor students. That will lead to variable amounts of support for poor students, which I think is inequitable—and I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said about that. In that respect some universities will be left with far bigger bills than others will.
	I am sorry not to agree with what my noble friend Lady Warwick said about Universities UK. She made its position clear. I recognise that there is a lot of disagreement among vice-chancellors on this.
	However, I hope that the Government will take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said and look at the matter very carefully. In that context can the Minister tell the Committee the position regarding the investigations about whether the Student Loans Company can provide individual universities with data on parental incomes of students who might be eligible for bursaries? We really should not pass a Bill to legislate the proposed changes until we are clear about that.
	If we were to do so, as I understand it, every university in the country would have to carry out a means test. That would be extraordinarily wasteful and a displacement of the work they ought to be doing in teaching students and undertaking research. It may well be possible to do this—but we have not been given any clear statement of that in relation to data protection problems. Until we have that, it makes the case for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, even stronger.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I do not wish to hold up the Committee for any length of time because I know everyone wishes to go to lunch. While we on these Benches have some sympathy with the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, we are of course the authors of the wrecking amendments referred to earlier, which we shall be considering later this afternoon.
	Our preference is for a no fee position. I am also at the moment unclear about the position on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, on the Government's proposals. Does he propose that his amendment should stand and that in addition there would be maintenance grants, as the Government already propose?

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: If the noble Baroness will permit me to intervene very briefly—yes.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am glad to have that clarification. I had some considerable reservations about it. We have no reservations about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, which, like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, these Benches support.
	As it stands, I am not confident that the wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is such that it would be possible to support it.

Baroness Seccombe: I shall also try and be as fast as possible. Although I sympathise with the principle behind these amendments, I am particularly concerned with the centralising effect they would have. Throughout the Bill we are supporting the independence and freedom of the universities. I believe that higher education institutions must make their own decisions about the kind of support that they offer. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in answer to points raised in debate by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, said that the Government provide 75 per cent of the standard national course costs to the Learning and Skills Council to pass on to the further education institutions. Each college is able to set its own policy on how it applies these funds.
	I have difficulty with an amendment that, as I understand it, enables the Secretary of State to dictate who falls into the category of an "under-represented" group. It would give the Secretary of State enormous power and it could lead so easily to social engineering.
	We agree that students should not be discriminated against because they cannot afford to pay fees, but we do not agree that students' circumstances should be judged by parental incomes. In fact, I believe that the proposed government scheme believes that too, as under the legislation before the Committee it is the student who will begin to pay the debt on attaining an income of £15,000.
	I should be grateful if my noble friend Lord Renfrew could answer one or two questions. Does he believe that the level of the national bursary should be raised when the cap is lifted on the current £3,000 limit? How much money does he envisage would be needed for the amendment? Would it include fees for those students who have been accepted on a lengthier professional course, such as medicine, dentistry or veterinary science?
	Finally, I assume that, as the Bill devolves power to Wales, the national bursary would only refer to English students. Has it been considered how this may fit with schemes in the devolved regions? It seems that it could be helpful if we could discuss this matter with my noble friend.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Perhaps I may begin by answering a few questions that have been raised. Both amendments—and I accept they come from different directions—look at the question of a national bursary scheme. As noble Lords have indicated, we agree that poorer students need support from central government. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was kind enough to tell us that she is producing wrecking amendments later—an interesting admission I thought, but there we go. I am also very mindful of the eating habits of your Lordships and I am very worried about those who arrive here without breakfast. So I intend to be reasonably brief.
	I think that we shall have an interesting debate later today around the whole question of fees. So I hope it is not impertinent to say to the Committee that I shall leave much of my speech on that area until later.
	I think that it is important to indicate that we are providing support from 2006–07 of £2,700 to all of the students indicated. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours asked whether it applies for the 18 to 21, or 18 to 30, age groups—it applies to all students of any age in England and Wales. It is not age-related in terms of the £1,000.

Lord Campbell-Savours: If that is the case, could we have a figure for the 18 to 21s, parental, gross and all income?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sure that we could, but I cannot give that immediately. I will write to the noble Lord and place a copy in the Library of the House.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to press my noble friend, but could that perhaps be done in the next few days?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It certainly can be done in the next few days. My intention with all letters is to ensure that they are sent before the next Committee day. I trust that the noble Lord will have the answer, so far as I am able to give it, before Monday. That may be a promise that I—or others—will live to regret later.
	My noble friend Lady Blackstone put it very well that it is important to be clear that we remove the payment of fees up front, and that students repay when they are able to, with all the cut-offs that we have indicated; that if you do not earn £15,000, you do not pay; if you drop below, you do not pay; after 25 years it is written off; and at the age of 65 it is written off. We are saying that it is for graduates to pay, and it is for us to try to support through university students in the poorest group. We have got that right.
	I know that noble Lords are concerned about whether one has one bursary scheme or different ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, described the situation of a student wishing to go to Cambridge. We know that there will be additional bursaries of up to £4,000 that have already been announced. I am proud of those significant steps that are being taken by that university, and by other universities such as the University of Surrey. These are important ways in which we address not only the issue of poverty, but real cultural resistance in some of our communities to students thinking that university is where they should be. Financial incentives of this kind are important. We have always said, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, was right in saying, that it is about not centralising and about recognising the individuality of institutions. Dare I say it, we must recognise that institutions need to go to different lengths in terms of addressing the problems, about which they know themselves, involved with ensuring that they get the right kind of applications from different students.
	I also agree that we should be cautious of the definition that would be indicated. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, talked about ethnic minority students in particular. I refer him to the draft letter of guidance from the Secretary of State. The details are for the institutions to decide, that they will look at many groups of students who might benefit. They might wish to give particular support to under-represented groups, some ethnic minorities, those with children, those with elder care responsibilities, or those with disabilities, but we are not requiring bursaries in the same way that we are proposing for poorer students, and it is for institutions to look at that themselves.
	We carefully considered the issue of a national bursary scheme. This was under consideration in the department for some time. We discussed the way in which that might work in practice with a range of institutions. We decided against it because we think that there are difficulties with the principle and the practice, not least because the purpose of the Bill is to seek to provide greater autonomy for institutions to charge variable fees, hand in hand with the responsibility to protect access for poorer students. A national bursary scheme goes against the principle of institutions being individually autonomous and responsible, not just for their fees, but for how they move to protect access. A national bursary scheme would be taking from one institution to give to another. Those institutions that might be expected to contribute most might understandably feel that it is their students and their own access agenda that should benefit from additional fee income, particularly where they voluntarily go beyond what the Director of Fair Access is looking for in the minimum.
	We could end up with three levels of support; a national bursary scheme, that provided by the state, and any institutional bursaries on top. This is not the way in which we wish to go. Many institutions are becoming increasingly successful in encouraging alumni and other benefactors to contribute to their bursary schemes. A national bursary scheme might be less attractive than individuals or other bodies contributing to the institution's bursary scheme.
	I understand and recognise the concerns of noble Lords that the greatest proportion of students from poorer backgrounds should not be disadvantaged, but that is without foundation. We recognise that those institutions that have an excellent track record in providing for students from poorer backgrounds will have that recognised in the work that the Director of Fair Access undertakes. We have indicated that the minimum of the £300 difference between the £2,700 and the £3,000 for those courses where that maximum is applied may well be for some institutions the most that we are expecting them to do.
	All in all, we have considered this carefully. It is important to ensure that there are examples of good bursary schemes, and we are working with Universities UK on their design, in the hope that we can take those forward. I have noted the question asked by my noble friend about the Student Loans Company. I understand that a working group is looking at that at the moment, and I do not have the detailed information that the noble Baroness has asked for. She has made it plain that from her perspective this is critical information. I shall endeavour to get that information as fast as I possibly can, and not only provide it to the noble Baroness, but put it in the Library of the House so that noble Lords will be able to see it.
	A national bursary scheme cuts across important independent, autonomous decisions by institutions. It is not the right way to go forward. On that basis, we hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am grateful to the Minister for her careful reply, which made a number of important points. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the points that I made, particularly to my noble friend Lady Perry and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I am a little disappointed at the tenor of the debate. I suspect that we are all feeling a shade dyspeptic at this time, and I am a little bewildered at the work of the usual channels in arranging that the lunchtime debate, which is to follow, will take place shortly after 2 p.m., rather than after 1 p.m., which might have been to the convenience of noble Lords. A number of noble Lords who have a close interest in the university world were prominent on various Benches until 12.30 or 12.45, but their absence has become somewhat marked.
	I have other disappointments. Having heard a most relevant speech from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, earlier, I thought that I was addressing a matter of principle, and I was highly disappointed that he did not address the principle that I was addressing, although he had a technical question to which it was interesting to hear the answer. I have great respect for the comments of the right reverend Prelate. He is right that when you introduce a threshold, you do come kicking up against it. This is true of all thresholds, and it would certainly be the case with this one. I will refer to that again in a moment. If we are dealing with family income, it always seemed a little unjust that one family that may have £500 a year income more than another is saddled with the burdens in this case of student loans, which would not be the case for those under the £15,000 threshold to which I was referring. I agree with the right reverend Prelate, and with my noble friend Lady Seccombe. If we are going to have a threshold, that is the price that you pay.
	My noble friend Lady Seccombe asked me a number of questions. It would be my hope that the principle, if applied, would apply in Wales. I did not dare to venture into Scotland, or Northern Ireland, but it should apply also in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I see my noble friend Lady Carnegy looking a shade suspiciously at me, so I will say no more about that, except that I wish that we had a situation in the United Kingdom where we could think of these things in higher education in aggregate. In reply to my noble friend Lady Seccombe, I intend that this provision would apply to courses of longer duration, such as medicine or veterinary science.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked me a pertinent question. I am not sure if it is possible to frame the amendment in such a way, as one might wish to do, to see the fee waiver accruing to students of United Kingdom origin. The noble Baroness has a valid point. I remind her, and I remind the Government, that there are many of us who wonder whether that is a chicken that will come home to roost with the Government's arrangements.
	I look forward very much to hearing about the recovery schemes which the Government will implement for students of European Union nationality, but not British nationality. I do not know what government agency will operate in Poland, Lithuania, Slovenia or Slovakia, and I will be very interested to hear about that. Although I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has an important point, it is a point that cuts not only into my amendment, but into the Government in general.
	I was puzzled by the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I have great enthusiasm for the University of Sheffield Hallam, and wish him well in his distinguished role. The intention—which I think I made very clear in my speech—was that these funds would come from the Government. I am not in a position to give a precise figure, but it will be a substantial figure. I could go away and do the calculation, and perhaps I should have done, but we are talking of £100 million from the Treasury to make that possible. The figure will be substantial. The noble Baroness could probably pluck the figure accurately from the air. But the funds would be from the Government; they would not be from the University of Sheffield Hallam. So I was puzzled by the noble Lord's intervention.
	The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and those made in a most sympathetic manner by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, really go to the heart of the matter. The question is, what is going to work? I agree with the equitability. I agree that if you look at the situation across the board, it is entirely reasonable that all students of whatever background will not be saddled with parental income. We are talking about an ideal world where students are not saddled by where they have come from, nor saddled by the parental background. I agree also with the points about education from 16 to 18. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. If she claims to be speaking for British universities, I am sure that she is. It is not my role to question that, but it is my role to question the wisdom of the position being taken.
	If the Government seriously wish to attract students into higher education from the group which I identified very specifically, then they will have to do more than they are now. I agree with the ideal world which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, described. I entirely agree with the equitability. But if you look at those universities—and I am in one—which have been trying consistently for many years to attract students from lower income cohorts in terms of familial income, it is not working. There is nothing which the Director of Fair Access can do other than what he will do, which is, roughly speaking, oblige universities—including the University of Sheffield Hallam if it charges a top-up fee—to make available the bursaries which I have been proposing from their own budgets.

Lord Winston: I hope, as I was named, that the Committee will forgive me for briefly interrupting. We are considering two amendments and it is not clear from the wording that that impost might eventually land on the universities' finances. That will be a disaster for so many universities and that is the real problem with these amendments.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I hope I had dealt with that point and so had the noble Lord, Lord Rix. We foresaw that problem. I take the logic of the point made, but I hope that I have made my own position on the matter very clear. Perhaps at the risk of repetition—I realise that we all would like some lunch soon—I will try to conclude. I have made it crystal clear that my amendment would not be an impost on universities. I am sorry that the amendments have been paired. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, whose amendment has found support, was able to distinguish his amendment from mine on that matter, so I am sorry that that point may have caused difficulty.
	I must come to my conclusion, which is that, despite the ideal world with the principle of equitability, as described by the noble Lord and with which I agree, it will not work. The proof that it will not work is that it has not worked. Until 1998, students had state studentships and their state scholarship component for the maintenance. It did not work in encouraging more applications from low-income families, it is not working now, and it will not work. So I am sorry that the Bill will not succeed in its objectives and I am very disappointed that there have not been more voices on this matter. There are not many people on the Benches opposite, so perhaps not many voices could be expected to be raised.
	The noble Lord, Lord Winston, indicates the Conservative Benches. I have had two very stirring speeches of support, although it is true that I could have wished to have been more comprehensively supported by my own Front Bench. I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Rix—if the pairing can be dissolved—to leave his amendment in position: I will not go into technicalities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 21 agreed to.

Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House be resumed and in moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before five minutes past three.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to accept the first Optional Protocol to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights so as to enable individual complaints about breaches of the covenant by the United Kingdom to be considered by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
	My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for participating in this brief, but I hope influential, debate. It seeks to discover whether the Government will at long last accept the first Optional Protocol to the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That would enable British citizens, like the other citizens of Europe and of the democratic Commonwealth, to complain to the UN Human Rights Committee of breaches of the covenant.
	Almost 30 years ago, when I was special adviser to Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, the Foreign Secretary, Tony Crosland, proposed that the UK should ratify the covenant. Whitehall officials were distinctly unenthusiastic, but Tony Crosland, Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey and other internationally minded heavyweights in Harold Wilson's Cabinet were sympathetic. A detailed list of reservations was agreed to meet any legitimate concerns of the various home departments, and in May 1976, the covenant was duly ratified.
	Most of the covenant's rights and freedoms are also protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. To that extent, the covenant adds nothing since victims of breaches have effective remedies in British courts and in the European Court of Human Rights.
	But in several important respects, the covenant is wider. For example, under the covenant, the guarantee of equality before the law and non-discrimination is free-standing. The rights of detained persons to humane and dignified treatment is stronger. The rights of political participation in the conduct of public affairs and public service are broader than in the European convention.
	The Human Rights Committee is the guardian of the covenant. It is a body of high calibre, consisting of 18 eminent jurists. British members have included Dame Rosalyn Higgins, now the British judge on the International Court of Justice, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. The current British member is Sir Nigel Rodley. Others include the former Chief Justices of India and Mauritius—Bhagwati and Lallah, as well as one of President Bush's senior legal advisers, Professor Ruth Wedgwood. I think I can say that all the British serving and former members of the committee would support the acceptance of the Optional Protocol. I know that at least two have written to the Government to say so.
	The committee may deal with a complaint only after all effective domestic and international remedies have been exhausted. It does not sit in public. It ensures that member states have the fullest opportunity to state their case before making findings and recommendations. Its recommendations are not binding in the way that judgments at the European Court of Human Rights must be complied with. It relies on voluntary compliance. Its opinions are not radical or overly intrusive; they strike a fair balance between individual rights and the general interest. They provide an important source of guidance on civil and political rights and obligations.
	Acceptance of the competence of the UN Human Rights Committee is optional. Every member state of the European Union except the United Kingdom has accepted that option, as have the democracies of the rest of the Commonwealth, including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and South Africa. Thirty-nine of the 45 countries of the Council of Europe have also done so. The remaining six are Moldova, which is not a member of the United Nations, Andorra, Albania, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Many countries that have accepted the protocol, including those in central and eastern Europe, have incorporated the covenant rights directly into their constitutions or ordinary legislation, but acceptance would not require the United Kingdom to take that step.
	The keynote address made by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on 4 July 1997—I emphasise the date—explained that, given the Government's support of human rights, they would not wish limitations on their international commitments to remain unless they were strictly necessary. Seven years ago the noble and learned Lord went on to refer to a review which would include whether to accept the right of individual petition under the covenant and under UN human rights treaties.
	When I had the privilege of chairing the United Nations Association 50th Anniversary Committee in 1998, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it placed particular importance on this matter in relation to the Optional Protocol.
	In December 2001 the UN Human Rights Committee itself stated that the UK,
	"should consider as a matter of priority"—
	again, I emphasise the words "matter of priority"—
	"how persons subject to its jurisdiction may be guaranteed effective and consistent protection to the full range of Covenant rights. It should consider, as a priority, accession to the first Optional Protocol".
	On 7 March 2002 the Government at last announced a review of the UK's position. That review was meant to report in the spring of last year. In a Written Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, on 21 October 2002, the noble Baroness explained to me that the review was on schedule to report to Ministers by the spring of 2003:
	"I would expect to be able to report the outcome shortly thereafter".—[Official Report, 21/10/02; col. WA 75.]
	The Written Answer given by her on 6 May 2003 was that,
	"recommendations will be made to Ministers shortly".—[Official Report; 6/5/03; col. WA 131.]
	The Written Answer given on 18 July 2003 by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin—who I am glad to see is to reply to this debate, even though I have a certain sympathy for the position in which he finds himself—stated:
	"We will report the outcome of the review as soon as reasonably possible".—[Official Report, 18/7/03; col. WA 195.]
	We are still awaiting the outcome of that review.
	On 8 December 2003, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, I pointed to the fact that we are in unsplendid isolation compared with the rest of Europe and the democratic Commonwealth. The noble and learned Lord undertook to consider the matter. I also wrote to him and to the Foreign Secretary in January of this year, but I have not even received the courtesy of a formal reply. I cannot think of any cogent reason for refusing to take this step, and I would be glad to be told—not in generalities but in the particular—of any legitimate objection which any government department has come up with.
	I await the Minister's reply with keen interest in the hope that he will be able to inform the House today that the Government have at last decided to give British citizens the same right of petition to the Human Rights Committee as is enjoyed by the other citizens of Europe and the democratic Commonwealth. That would greatly enhance the credibility of the Government, here and across the world, in supporting the protection of human rights.
	I want to make two further points before I finish. The first is that I am delighted to see that our proceedings are enriched by the presence of the former Lord Chancellor, to whom I have just referred. He hinted at this move as long ago as 4 July 1997 in his speech at University College, London, which I commend to the House. Secondly, I have already indicated informally to the Minister that I would be perfectly willing to meet all the officials in Whitehall who can think of any possible reason not to take this step, to listen to their objections and seek to reply to them in front of any Minister the noble Lord cares to nominate who can adjudicate on the matter because, with the utmost moderation, I have to say that the present situation is wholly unacceptable.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill on introducing this subject, one that he has pursued with great assiduity over the years. It was interesting to listen to his resumé of the history of our accession to the UN ICCPR and the discussions that took place in the Cabinet of 30 years ago. One would have thought that with this Government, committed as they are to human rights, we should have moved on. I certainly welcome both the establishment of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the announcement that every government department is to review its own activities to ensure that human rights are mainstreamed throughout all their activities.
	However, as my noble friend has explained, the question of whether we should accede to the Optional Protocol has been around for many years. I had always understood that governments of every complexion were against the idea on the grounds that it would overlap with the ECHR. I may be wrong about that, and I hope that the Minister will correct me if that is the case. However, my noble friend has pointed out that almost every other country in the Council of Europe which subscribes to the ECHR has also accepted the Optional Protocol. Moreover, my noble friend could have added that in Latin America, which has a similar system under the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, most if not all of the states which are parties to that procedure have also signed up to the Optional Protocol.
	It is not argued that the number of cases would be very large. I note that in November 2003 the committee had before it 253 communications from the whole spectrum of signatory states, some of which had been carried over from previous years. The rules of procedure allow for the joint examination of admissibility and merits in most cases, and the committee may adopt views or decisions declaring the communications admissible or inadmissible. As my noble friend has explained, the committee has no power to enforce its decisions, and it has to rely almost entirely on publicity for implementation. If the United Kingdom did sign up to the protocol, it is almost inconceivable that the Government would not comply with any views that the committee might express.
	The UN International Covenant is the most authoritative expression of what is meant by human rights, one to which almost every country in the world subscribes, even if most of them do not live up to it. The UK should do everything it can to consolidate respect for the covenant and universal observance of its provisions. By continuing to hold back from acceding to the Optional Protocol we appear to be saying to the rest of the world that we are not fully committed to the additional rights which appear in the covenant, but not in the ECHR.
	When he appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that Mr David Laming was ensuring that the Audit Commission saw to it that local authorities were mainstreaming human rights activity. He gave that as just one example of a general process taking place throughout government. Reference was made to a letter which has gone out to all departments on the process of mainstreaming, but the noble and learned Lord confirmed that when the departments dealt with the public authorities within their remit, such as the Audit Commission, their attention would be directed only towards the Human Rights Act, which covers the ECHR, and thus, by implication, not to the ICCPR.
	When the noble and learned Lord said that he would concentrate entirely on the Human Rights Act because it was part of our law he was giving the game away that we did not intend to enforce the rights in the ICCPR through the process that has been described as mainstreaming. But the discussion between the JCHR and the Lord Chancellor also touched on our other treaty obligations, which are binding even if they have not been enacted. The courts can refer to them, as they did to the ECHR before the Human Rights Act.
	Both the courts and the public authorities had to consider that if they did not satisfy the provisions of the ECHR before it was enacted in the Human Rights Act, the matter would be dealt with in Strasbourg. That was the incentive to comply with the ECHR, for which there is no equivalent in the case of the ICCPR unless we sign up to the Optional Protocol.
	Where the new Equality Commission appears to be a longstop for ICCPR issues—though not individual complaints—is that it will have a general power to conduct free-standing human rights inquiries not specifically related to equality issues. That was stated by the Lord Chancellor when he appeared before the Joint Committee.
	The inquiries would clearly need to look at any matters covered by the ICCPR but not by the ECHR, as also on other human rights issues such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Those investigations could throw up questions that could not be directly addressed under our domestic law.
	The only other country that has signed up to the optional protocol recently of which I know and have been able to look at in the short time available is Australia, which acceded to the Optional Protocol in 1991. Since it came into force in December of that year there have been 14 individual communications against Australia, four of which were declared inadmissible and seven of which have yet to be considered by the Human Rights Committee. Of the remaining three cases, only one was upheld on its merits, which was a case involving Article 2 on the prohibition of discrimination coupled with Article 17 on the right to privacy.
	Those articles have equivalents in the ECHR, so one might assume that if the same circumstances had arisen in the UK the complainant would have had a remedy under the Human Rights Act. However, it has also to be observed that the language of the two instruments is not identical. In general, we could take it that fewer complaints would arise proportionally in the UK than in Australia because of the existence here of the ECHR remedies.
	Where the ICCPR rights are to all intents and purposes identical to those in the ECHR, the Human Rights Committee would have to declare inadmissible any complaint that had already been considered by the European Court. It would be useful to know what the experiences in that regard have been in other European countries.
	I considered the case of a Swedish citizen, Mr Asbjörn Skjoldager. It was said that the Swedes had entered into a reservation on the Optional Protocol that the Human Rights Committee would not consider any communication from an individual unless it had ascertained that the same matter was not or had not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. In that case Mr Skjoldager had already been before the ECHR.
	If the noble and learned Lord was concerned about the possible duplication of cases under the ECHR and the ICCPR he could deal with that issue by entering a similar reservation to that used by Sweden. If there was any fear that cases might be disposed of at Strasbourg and then started over again in the Human Rights Committee we could deal with it in that manner.
	The Government have been seized by the matter for many years. My noble friend Lord Lester mentioned the review by the Lord Chancellor in 1977 and the second review by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in 2003, neither of which have led to any Statement to Parliament. It is time for the Government to come before Parliament and state plainly what matters they are taking into consideration and why they are of such a nature as to require lengthy deliberation behind closed doors.
	Would it not be in accordance with the principle of open government of which they claim to be such ardent champions if the Minister now put their cards on the table and opened up the subject to parliamentary and public scrutiny rather than presenting us with a decision that would be difficult to vary, whatever the merits of the arguments put from outside Whitehall?

Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, it is obvious that there are limits on what and how much can be done by the United Nations Human Rights Committee under the procedures available to it. I do not want to repeat the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, but I fully share his view that it has long been time that we should have adopted the optional protocol. It seems to be entirely consistent with the attitudes this country has shown in adopting the Human Rights Act and in our support for the UN Universal Charter of Human Rights at the Nice conference. The Government should be urged at this stage to adopt the additional protocol.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we all know that committees take minutes and years, but it seems to us and certainly to me having looked through the series of Answers to Questions we have had since 1997 that it is not unreasonable to ask the Government now either to decide or to set a clear time-scale during which they will decide whether Britain is going to ratify the first optional protocol.
	I know that when Lord Williams of Mostyn was Minister in the Home Office he said in a reply to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill in December 1998:
	"I expect the review to be completed by the end of 1998".—[Official Report, 9/12/98; col. WA 91.]
	I note that some months later, in a general reply to another Written Question from my dogged noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, he said:
	"We shall announce the results of this review shortly".—[Official Report, 1/2/99; col. WA 186.]
	In a reply in another place by Mr Rammell to a question from Adam Price MP, we were told:
	"We will announce the outcomes of the Review to Parliament as soon as is reasonably possible".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/04; col. 1352W.]
	It seems that "reasonably possible" does not entirely cover a full seven years and I am not sure that it would cover eight, nine or 10 years without beginning to verge strongly on the level of unreasonableness. I hope that the Minister in his answer will give us a slightly tighter time-scale than we have had in response to those inquiries.
	I am conscious that there is a question about the overlap and occasional inconsistency between European and global obligations on human rights. I was chair of the Lords sub-committee that considered amendment 13 to the Amsterdam treaty that extended European Community law on anti-discrimination to a wide new area. The Government may feel that our European obligations are the ones that count and that we therefore do not have to join the optional protocol, although it seems odd that all other member governments of the European Union have thought it appropriate nevertheless to ratify the optional protocol. If Her Majesty's Government are following different advice from that given to all other member governments of the EU we should be told and given an explanation.
	We are also conscious that the global regime on human rights is weak. There is a great deal wrong with the UN system and most member states of the UN pay little attention to their human rights obligations. We have been deeply embarrassed to see Libya elected as chair of the UN Human Rights Commission. We see a range of other regimes around the world simply sweeping aside their concern with human rights.
	There is also the question of example. It is very important that the states of this world which wish to show that they adhere to the highest possible standards, demonstrate that they do so. In the past three years, the United States has had an Administration which has not thought it necessary to do so and a Secretary of Defense who has not thought it necessary to observe the Geneva Convention. We are now beginning to see where that has led the United States.
	Now is therefore not the time for Her Majesty's Government to signal in any way that they do not wish to sign up to the fullest level of obligations in terms of international law. I find it difficult to understand why the Government have spent so much time considering whether they wish to ratify the Optional Protocol. I also find it difficult to understand why they have not yet been able to agree that they should ratify it.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing this important and worthwhile debate. I commend the noble Lord for his determination in pursuing on so many occasions the question as to whether Her Majesty's Government will accept the first Optional Protocol to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The noble Lord has continually held the Government to account for their delay in concluding this matter and his resolve should be applauded. He has certainly received strong support from his two noble colleagues and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, today.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been told time and again by the Government that they are reviewing the issue of the first Optional Protocol and that they will report their findings in due course. However, we remain no closer to any firm response. When the noble Lord last questioned the Government on this matter, in a Written Answer the Minister stated:
	"The very wide scope of the review, and the number of government departments involved, have caused the review to take longer than expected".—[Official Report, 2/2/04; col. WA 71.]
	That was more than three months ago and we still have no answer.
	Her Majesty's Government are beginning to run out of realistic excuses for any further delay. Will the Minister explain when we are likely to have a definite conclusion and what that conclusion might be? With their ethical foreign policy objectives, why is it so difficult for Her Majesty's Government to come to a decision about the Optional Protocol, one way or the other? Given that the Government have long proclaimed their support for human rights, it seems strange that they are unwilling even to account for their lack of enthusiasm to sign up to this Optional Protocol.
	It also seems that Government Ministers have been remiss in continually refusing to provide the noble Lord, Lord Lester, with answers to his questions on this matter. They have been saying that the review of the first Optional Protocol will be made available to Ministers "shortly" since March 2002. The word "shortly" is certainly being used in a curious way. The noble Lord has already told the House that he took up the matter with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in December last year; he then wrote to the Lord Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary in January but is yet to receive an answer. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation as to exactly what is now happening.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, despite the fact that he has put us in a challenged position by introducing the debate, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for doing so and for his unstinting contribution, along with others, to the cause of human rights in our society.
	As noble Lords will know, the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one of the many instruments being considered in the interdepartmental review of human rights instruments announced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as long ago as 7 March 2002. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others have been patient—perhaps that patience is wearing thinner—in waiting for the outcome of this review. I am apologetic for the time that it has taken to reach a conclusion.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, the review has a very wide scope and the number of government departments involved has caused it to take longer than we had hoped. The review has considered a huge number of instruments—some 67 reservations, interpretative declarations and treaties, unsigned and unratified—from the most wide-ranging, such as Protocol 12 to the ECHR, to the most local and specific, such as the United Kingdom's reservation to Article 23(3) of the ICCPR concerning marriages on the Solomon Islands.
	We clearly want to get the review right. This is one instance where perhaps there has been a need to take time to have discussions across government on these issues. We are taking on new international obligations and we must be 100 per cent clear about the implications, benefits and burdens that will flow from them.
	I can assure the House that we are now very near to completion. That impression has perhaps been received previously, but we hope to announce the outcomes of the review to Parliament very shortly. In an attempt to forestall too many interruptions at this point, I should perhaps be a little sharper and indicate that I will be personally deeply embarrassed if I or my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer do not do so before the Summer Recess. Clearly these matters will benefit from coming to a conclusion and no doubt we will have a good debate on them. However, the review is not concluded; it is not public and at this stage obviously we cannot pre-empt its conclusions.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the concern that people in Britain should be granted the widest possible spectrum of civil and political rights consistent with a society that also values the virtues of community spirit and social responsibility. I also share his concern that the citizens of the United Kingdom should enjoy the fullest possible protection of those civil and political rights.
	It was for that reason that, in 1998, we introduced the Human Rights Act so that UK citizens could uphold their rights under the European convention. I believe that most thoughtful people celebrate the benefits that we as a society have achieved as a consequence of that. It has by no means been otiose.
	As has been mentioned, the majority of the rights contained in the ICCPR are already protected in the United Kingdom under the Human Rights Act. Without in any way wishing to underrate the significance of the UNHRC, it is a fact that the Human Rights Act gives UK citizens a far greater level of protection and redress for their rights than the more limited protection provided by petition to the committee. Nevertheless, I would not pretend that there is an exact synchronicity between the two jurisdictions and that therefore there is a wider scope in some respects for the UNHRC than for our own ECHR.
	We have not been passive on human rights since 1998. We have signed up to several important international human rights treaties. In doing so, we have continued to show the way to the world at large. On 3 May 2002, as soon as it was opened for signature, we signed Protocol 13 to the ECHR, finally abolishing the death penalty in all circumstances. We ratified Protocol 13 on 10 October 2003 and only yesterday, 12 May, we took before the Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation an amendment to the Human Rights Act which incorporates Protocol 13 into UK law. We intend to bring that amendment before your Lordships in the very near future.
	On 10 December 2003 we ratified the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture. We were one of the first countries to sign the protocol and to date we are one of only three countries to have ratified it. This protocol enables the establishment of a system of regular visits by independent national and international bodies to places of detention. Its ratification by the UK shows three things: first, that we are not standing still on human rights; secondly, that we are not afraid to subject our actions and policies to international scrutiny; and, thirdly, that we respect the United Nations and take positive action to support its measures.
	I turn to a number of the questions or points that were raised in debate. I was grateful for the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the Government's commitment to human rights, while he was clearly not implying satisfaction with all that we had done or not done. Clearly, the Commission for Equality in Human Rights, announced yesterday, is a significant move forward. It is right that the commission will be responsible for challenging discrimination across society and, for the first time, promoting human rights. The White Paper which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer published jointly with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it clear that the new body will be expected to promote and give guidance on human rights beyond the ECHR. While that is not a total answer to the point being raised in this debate, it is relevant to it. Clearly, that would include the issues in ICCPR.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister and I fear that I may have to ask another question a little later, but I cannot find any reference to that in the White Paper. Will his advisers tell him where one finds it? My reading of the White Paper suggests that the new commission will be confined to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR in its human rights mode. I may be mistaken, but I cannot find reference to any further remit in the White Paper. If I am wrong about that, I would be grateful to be told.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is wrong or I shall have to apologise. I hope to give that answer shortly. If not, I shall respond to him in writing.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, signalled that he thought that the volume of references to the United Nations was likely to be small. He is right in that respect, as evidenced by the experience of other countries. He further suggested that for those countries that were signed up to ECHR, he expected it to be smaller still. The evidence bears him out on that. I shall not spend a lot of time quoting the evidence from New Zealand, Canada, Sweden or Denmark over reasonable periods of time. I accept that point.
	On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the White Paper, I am advised that I shall write to him rather than give him the answer now. I hope to come back to him before the weekend on that point.
	In conclusion, I hope that the House will bear with the fact that the Government have taken their time on this measure. As I have indicated, we shall put before the House our response to the review by the Summer Recess. No doubt we shall have a further debate on those issues at that stage. However, at this point, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for reminding us of the importance of these issues and for holding the Government to account for them.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I thank him for what he has told us so far. On the point about the Equality in Human Rights Commission, when his advisers re-read the White Paper, they will find not even a reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in it. I think that the only human rights international instrument to which reference is made is the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated by the Human Rights Act. That is clearly an important matter on which further thought will be required.
	However, what troubles me about the Minister's reply is not the further delay—I would be willing to wait for a further six months if I thought that the result would be the right one—but the process. I ask the Minister the following question. If the Government will not publish a Green Paper, will they give those of us who regard ourselves as knowing a bit about it, and those who know a lot about it like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, the opportunity at least to know what sticking points, objections and problems the Government perceive as preventing them doing what the rest of the democratic world has done? It would not be satisfactory to wait for a fait accompli. Can we not, please, in some way—it does not matter if it is in private or in public—know what are the issues so that we can help the Government to be well informed when they take this important decision?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I noted with interest the noble Lord's suggestion of a discussion with officials. As he would expect, I affirm that Ministers carry the responsibility for decisions and therefore they are to be held to account for these issues. Without doubt, when we bring forward for debate our response to the review, I expect that either I or my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will put into the clear public domain our reasoning for whatever decisions we come to.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that was not my experience when I was in government with Roy Jenkins as my boss. If outside expert bodies or NGOs had something to say, they would come and see him and me and his civil servants in order to thrash it out. I remember well people such as Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt from the NCCL doing precisely that. Surely a better decision would be made if Ministers had the benefit of a dialogue. Surely that would help them to come to right conclusion.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it depends on how it is done. As a Minister, I spend most of my time trying to bring outside organisations into my room for discussion, because that best informs me in my judgment about what are the issues in the real world. Unless I misinterpreted him, that is different from the position of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that it was officials who deal with the issue and that he therefore needed to have a discussion with them. I shall take away and reflect on his point with the clarification that he has given to it.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.5 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 2.46 to 3.5 p.m.]

Higher Education Bill

House again in Committee.

Lord Triesman: In the interests of pressing forward a little this afternoon, lunch was very late and I know that everybody will have refreshed themselves, but I hope not so much that we will need to spend quite so long on some of the amendments. I put the point very respectfully.

Clause 22 agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies]:

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 9, line 7, after "course" insert "for which unconditional offers of places have been made to students after 1st April 2006"

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: In moving Amendment No. 38 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 49. In the interests of making some progress, I will try to be brief. The purpose of these amendments is to add a duty to the governing body of the relevant institution under Clause 23(1) to ensure that those students who are awarded a deferred unconditional place through the UCAS system prior to 1 April 2006 will pay only the basic amount of fees. That means that students who gain a university place and take a gap year will adhere to the current system of fees rather than the one which the Bill seeks to introduce. That follows the precedent set by the Government in the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 which was implemented by Regulation 6(8)(a) of the Education Mandatory Awards Regime. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is not in her place, but she was responsible for making that concession and at the time she said that students who had,
	"an agreed firm or conditional deferred entry place for 1998—taking a 'gap-year' in 1997—will be treated as if they are entering higher education in 1997. This will mean that they will not be required to pay tuition fees for the duration of their course".
	I appreciate that the circumstances are slightly different, in so far as the vessel that is this Bill has been spotted on the horizon and has been sailing into port over a longer period of time. However, it does not alter the fact that nowadays most students wish to take a gap year. Indeed, when reading the Scottish papers this morning, I found in the Glasgow Herald—or the Herald as it likes to call itself—a statement about a new initiative by the Scottish Executive to give up to £40 a week to students from poorer families who wish to take a gap year, and marvellous statements from the executive about the importance of gap years.
	It could be argued that under the new regime poorer students will be entitled to some support through maintenance grants, and that that would be an improved position from their point of view. However, the fact is that they will face fees which are £2,000 a year more for three years. While people might argue that these will be deferred for payment, that still involves an obligation to pay them off over a 25-year period with a higher effective rate of tax being paid by the graduate, and it must act as a disincentive for some students to take a gap year. I do not need to declare an interest because my youngest daughter is currently studying for her A-levels and will be applying for university on a deferred basis and having a gap year. But were I in that position, I think I would be encouraging my offspring perhaps to consider having a gap year at the end of their university education and not at the beginning. If I were a parent who felt that I did not want my children to start life with large amounts of debt, I would be even more concerned about that. The issue is serious and I hope, even if the Minister cannot tell us today that he would be prepared to accept the amendment, that he will recognise that it matters a great deal.
	There is a whole industry out there that exists to put youngsters into all kinds of weird and wonderful places around the world, doing marvellous work. We have seen that most recently demonstrated by some of the younger members of the Royal Family. It would be greatly damaged—I am sure that it is an unintentional consequence—if we found that many of the students were no longer available to take those gap-year places. The organisations clearly would not be able to put people in placements. There is another side effect, which is that, if the whole cohort of people who were previously going to do a gap year decided instead that they would go to university, there would be a huge additional demand in one year. That will mean that many students who would otherwise have got a place on the course that they really wanted to do at the institution to which they really wanted to go would get a rejection notice from UCAS.
	For all those reasons, I very much hope that the Minister will think about the matter, discuss it with his colleagues, and come back with a proposal to repeat what was done on the previous occasion in 1998. We should treat those students who meet the conditions that I have described and who are taking a gap year exactly as though they had started without having a deferred year before beginning university. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support Amendments Nos. 38, 42 and 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and shall speak particularly to Amendment No. 53, which stands in my name.
	The noble Lord put the case for a gap year briefly and concisely. Every year approximately 29,000 students take a gap year. Such a year gives the student, as well as the advantages of the gap year itself, a degree of time to reflect after they have done their A-levels on whether they are really going for the right course. It also gives them time to make applications and know for certain whether they have been accepted at the university. Many of them have that certainty during their gap year, which helps them to make greater use of the experience. It also gives the universities greater certainty. They know by about Christmas whether a student will be on their books. I know that the universities also welcome the greater maturity shown by many students who take a gap year in their approach towards study.
	The gap-year experience, whether in Britain or abroad, widens horizons and broadens the mind. That increasing understanding of the way in which the world works often helps to make students better, both in individual terms and in terms of participating in the team. The only exception, interestingly enough, is mathematics. Mathematicians are not very keen on students taking a gap year because, in a sense, they forget too much in that long period. It is obviously a subject where sequential development is of considerable importance.
	The difficulty with which we are confronted in the Bill is that, as in 1998, a cohort of students will come through who would have taken a gap year and are now confronted by the choice of dropping the gap year and not having to pay the fees. When the matter was discussed in the other place, the Minister immediately said, "Ah, yes, but they are also going to lose the opportunity of having maintenance grants", as, alongside having to pay fees, the opportunity is there for the students to have the higher maintenance grants if they come from lower-income families. That is the issue that we discussed just before lunch. One problem with it is that, perhaps disproportionately, those who take gap years come from higher-income rather than lower-income families. Therefore, the advantage of being able to get the maintenance grant will not appeal that much.
	Before I finish, I want to quote from a letter received by my honourable friend Mr Phil Willis, who is my party's spokesman for education in the other place. We have the writer's permission to quote from it. His name is Sammy Driscoll, and he is a sixth-form student at Dame Alice Owen's School in Potters Bar. He writes that he will be finishing his,
	"A levels in July 2005. I have always planned that I would take a gap year and do some voluntary work overseas before going to University in October 2006. As a result of the Government's proposal . . . I am now faced with a really difficult choice. If I go on the gap year placement in Africa, which will cost about £2,000, I will have to pay the higher tuition fees and end up with an extra £6,000 loan at the end of my degree.
	"I think this is really unfair. When tuition fees were first introduced, special provision was made for students taking a gap year so that they were not worse off. There are thousands of us who would want to do a gap year in 2005 and we are all going to be faced with this choice. I think many of us will be forced to miss the gap year, which is not only going to be worse for us, but will also mean there are a lot fewer volunteers for all the projects round the world . . . It probably also means . . . a lot more competition for university places in 2005, so we all lose out again".
	That very neatly summarises the arguments in favour of some movement on the gap years. Last time there were adjustments. There will be losses all round. The students and universities lose the benefit of the widening experience, the voluntary organisations lose the volunteers, and there will be more competition for places, which will squeeze some 18 year-olds and 19 year-olds out. I ask the Minister to think again and to consider whether some more encouragement could be given to students in this case.

Lord Lewis of Newnham: I support the amendment. In addition to all that has been said—I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—another very important role is played by such a year off, if it indeed is a year off. It is simply that in subjects such as engineering, although it is not mandatory in all universities for students to take a year to get experience of industry, in Cambridge it has been a very successful operation. A large percentage of the students who read engineering take the year off and provide themselves with a very good background on which they can then proceed with their studies.

Lord Triesman: I accept that the issue is important. We share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the value of gap years, of the experience that they engender, and of the maturity that they manage to produce in the students who take them. All the amendments are about the position of people who wish to take a gap year before they go to university. Before I speak to the amendments specifically, I should set out the Government's thinking on gap years. I ought to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on inventing a few months ago the post-university deferred gap year. It is a rather ingenious concept to suggest taking such a year at the end of university.
	The points made by Members of the Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, were about ensuring that young people should be able to take a gap year if they chose. However, the amendments assume that variable fees will deter them from doing so.
	I should like to explain why the Government do not believe that this will be the case. The support package which we have announced for new students from 2006–07 is, we believe, a generous one. The poorest students, for example, will receive a grant of up to £2,700 as well as a bursary support from the institutions themselves. This support, and the removal of up-front fees which will prove to be a real financial obstacle, may actually encourage some students to take a gap year. We believe that is what will happen.
	In addition to bigger grants and bursaries, we are providing higher loans for living costs; introducing fee deferral; and we have announced that loans will be written off after 25 years. So, in many ways, starting a course in 2006–07 is more attractive.
	The intended effect of this amendment may be to achieve transitional arrangements for gap year students similar to those when tuition fees were first introduced in 1998. That was the case that was put.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I am not sure I understood what he was saying. Is it that because the poorer students will get a package of £3,000—if we take the elements that make up the maintenance grant, the deferred fees and the bursary—they might want to take advantage of that and wait to go to university? It is true that they will get that package of £3,000 but it is also true that in many universities they will have to pay fees of £3,000. So it is cost-neutral, albeit that the fees are paid "post graduation".
	Is that the Minister's argument—that there is an additional liability that is post, which is matched by the grant, and that therefore they might want to take advantage of that rather than go for the present position, where they have a liability of only £1,100? Is that what he is saying?

Lord Triesman: It is the combination of all of those factors: the amount, the deferral and the fact that unlike at present, they will not have to find that money at the beginning. That we believe should be at least neutral, and possibly better than neutral in encouragement terms.
	There are key differences between the circumstances which surrounded the introduction of tuition fees in 1998–99, and of variable fees that are proposed for 2006–07. In order to illustrate why we have not proposed similar arrangements in the Bill I will say a word or two about those differences.
	By the time the decision to introduce tuition fees in 1998–99 was taken and made public in the summer of 1997, many students had already decided to do a gap year. They had committed themselves to activities: some had even made financial commitments in relation to those activities. They had done so on the entirely fair assumption that the student support arrangements for 1998–99 would be the same as they were for 1997–98. That is why we felt it was right that these students should not have to pay tuition fees for their first year at university. I know that my noble friend Lady Blackstone was concerned that that unfairness and unpredictability should not be a burden for those involved.
	But the introduction of variable fees is being proposed in very different circumstances. First, students will have had three years' notice of the intention to allow universities to introduce variable fees. Secondly, the system is changing from one of up-front payment of fees to one in which students can get loans for fees—and they start to repay those loans only after graduation when they earn more than £15,000 a year. Thirdly, in a fixed fee regime, universities had no choice but to charge gap year students the standard fee unless we legislated to allow otherwise. That is not the case now. Universities under a variable fee regime will have flexibility to decide how to treat gap year students in exactly the same way as they have the flexibility to set fees for other students below the cap of £3,000. Indeed we know that Universities UK, on behalf of the sector, has supported previous amendments, and therefore the principle of transitional arrangements for gap year students entering higher education in 2006–07.
	Under the legislation, the universities have freedom to make such arrangements themselves. They are not prevented from doing so if they wish. I believe it is right to give institutions this choice, and right that they should have responsibility for setting their fees at levels which are appropriate to them.
	The student support package which we have announced for students from 2006–07 will ensure that all those with the ability to do so may participate in higher education. We are firmly committed to widening participation, as indeed are Members on all sides of the Committee, and our proposal has been put forward to that end.
	I shall turn to the individual amendments, but there is a point which has to be made. Were we to accept any amendment, however generously in spirit that amendment had been put, that automatically exempted gap year students from variable fees, it is the universities that would lose as a result. They would get less fee income from each and every student to whom the exemption applies, and there is no question of the Government making good the loss.
	To complete the point in response to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, it is true that some institutions have said they will give much larger bursaries than £300. We have talked about some of them earlier today: Cambridge University, Imperial College, Exeter University and I think some others have already said that their bursaries will be additional—some up to about £4,000 on top of the maintenance package. I would contend that in those circumstances the fees should not be a disincentive.
	Amendment No. 42 has an unintended consequence. By setting a cut-off point of 1 April for the date by which offers must be made, it may well catch a number of students—who wish to enter higher education in 2006–07 but who are not applying for deferred entry—who have received early offers.
	It is not unknown for institutions to make such offers to outstanding candidates. A cut-off point of April for offers would therefore mean that some students would be exempted from variable fees where that is not the intention.
	Amendments Nos. 38 and 49 have a still more serious flaw. Although I understand that noble Lords want further to protect gap year students, these amendments would exempt both gap year and existing students from the condition of grant. That does not mean that such students are exempted from higher fees. It actually exempts them from the controls that the condition of grant gives us over fees. The amendments thus have the effect of leaving such students open to wholly unregulated fees. I am sure that that is not the intention. There are further technical problems which I could go into at length but I do not think the Committee would welcome that.
	Perhaps I may say a few words about Amendment No. 53. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the way in which the amendment would operate. While I understand its intended effect, the amendment does not provide for a mechanism through which the Secretary of State could exempt gap year students from variable fees. It does not enable him to disapply the higher amount for such students as a condition of grant. As a result, it would not work.
	If the intention is to protect gap year students, then I believe that the amendment also has an unintended consequence. It sets a cut-off point of 1 January for the date by which offers must have been made, and it is very likely to catch a number of students—who wish to enter higher education in 2006–07 but who are not applying for deferred entry—who have received early offers. Such offers are, as I pointed out earlier, quite often made.
	To sum up, these amendments have a number of technical defects which noble Lords perhaps have not foreseen. I am not sure that those are areas that they would have wanted to cover. There is some doubt as to whether students will now be deterred from pursuing a gap year in 2005, given the improvements in student support which are starting in 2006.
	Universities have the flexibility to respond to this issue themselves. The freedom of universities to do that is, I believe, an important freedom in a world which is becoming over-regulated.
	In the light of all that, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw their amendments.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his responses, in particular that in relation to my amendment. I take on board the technical points he makes, but, more substantively, I am sorry that on the general issue he has not seen fit to be a little more sympathetic to the students.
	While arguing that they will be eligible for maintenance grants, he has not taken on board the fact that a number of them, as a result of their parents' joint income, will not be so eligible. There is therefore a real incentive for such students to do away with the gap year and go to university earlier. That poses problems. At present, 29,000 are taking gap years and there is the potential of an extra 20,000 students or so applying to universities. That can create a bulge in universities and in 1998 the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, conceded on this issue in order to try to smooth that process. However, there is a possibility that that smoothing will not be achieved and that some students will find themselves excluded.
	The Minister made a great deal of the fact that it would be up to individual universities to use their discretion. In other respects, many of us are arguing that we would be delighted to see universities having a little more discretion on a number of these issues. Equally, he makes the point that any reduction in income will be a reduction in the universities' income, but, as he pointed out, the universities need the money in their own coffers. Therefore, the chances of universities making that concession to individual students is probably not that great.
	I thank the Minister for his answer and I am sorry that he was not a little more sympathetic towards these students.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am not as enthusiastic about the Minister's answer as is the noble Baroness. He did not deal with any of the substantive points. I did not understand the argument that universities will lose out on income. If the student decides not to take a gap year, the university will not receive the enhanced fees. It makes my brain hurt to try to understand the Minister's point.
	When the Government introduced tuition fees for the first time, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, recognised this as a real problem. She created a precedent by making an exemption for people who had places and I pay tribute to her for doing that. It was appreciated at the time. However, I understand that the Minister's argument for not doing so on this occasion is that students knew it was coming. May I remind him that this Bill has not passed through the House? This Bill is not yet on the statute book, so no one knows what is coming. Whether it is coming is a matter for Parliament. Therefore, the Minister is taking things a little for granted in suggesting that they have had three years' notice.
	The Minister also argued that there is some incentive. I cannot imagine that many parents will say to their sons and daughters, "By the way, we think you should have a gap year because you will get a great deal by doing so. Instead of paying £1,100 in fees, you will pay £3,000 in fees and you will pay it off for 25 years after you have graduated if you get a salary of more than £20,000". Parents who give their children that advice could get a job in Barclays bank persuading people to take out more debt on credit cards. It is not a sensible proposition and I am surprised that the Minister cannot see that there will be a powerful incentive for students to forego their gap year. That would be a tragedy for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
	I do not for the life of me understand why the Minister is not taking exactly the same position as was taken previously. I have dealt with his argument that the universities would lose out on funding, but, equally, that argument applied when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made the exemption. I therefore hope that the Minister will take away the proposal and think about it. He said that on the previous occasion people had already decided to take a gap year, but my experience of my own children is that they decided to take a gap year five years before going to university. It is a major cultural event nowadays.
	We in this House who are considering legislation are of a generation who received their education free; who received grants for their education; and who now pay tax at 40 per cent as highest earners. Yet we are opposing these additional burdens on students for reasons we will debate later in the Bill. It seems a small request that, given there is a transitional difficulty in respect of the gap year, the Government should make a concession. The Minister argued that he will not do it because it will put a cost on the universities if students decide not to take their gap year. It will not do so and that is the weakest of grounds on which to stake his claim.
	The matter was not properly discussed in the House of Commons because of the absurd way in which business is now guillotined there. I hope that the Minister will think again. I am happy to agree to withdraw the amendment, but should he not think again, we will certainly return to it and will want to press the matter very strongly indeed. I hope that he will discuss with his colleagues whether there is room for second thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 9, line 7, leave out from "course," to end of line 11 and insert "no fees are payable by any qualifying person, and"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 39, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48 and 79. Their purpose is to eliminate from the Bill any reference either to basic amounts or to higher amounts of fees and to substitute instead the notion that qualifying persons—namely, the students as defined by Clause 23(6)—should pay no fees at all.
	In the Second Reading debate, I spoke at some length about the reasons why I and my noble friends in this House and my honourable friends in another place support a policy of no fees. I do not intend to repeat that speech. However, I want briefly to reiterate the points we made and explain why we oppose the proposals which this Bill will bring into effect.
	I argued that the proposals were, first, ineffective in their prime purpose for raising money for the university sector. At most, they were likely to bring about £900 million into the university sector at a time when current deficits on teaching budgets alone are running in the region of £2 billion.
	Secondly, I argued that it was an inefficient way of raising these moneys because in order to make the proposals acceptable to their Back Benchers and to overcome the real problems of debt aversion among students from low-income families, the Government were pouring some £1.4 billion into a complicated set of schemes. In effect, they paid the students to enable them to pay their fees. I argued then, and I still argue today, that both universities and students would be better off if the money went straight into the university coffers rather than being diverted in these round-about ways.
	Lastly, I argued that it was unfair. While we support the notion of students repaying after graduation, the size of the debt that we are now expecting young graduates to shoulder means that many of them are likely to be landed with a repayment, at an effective marginal rate of tax of 42 per cent, for a considerable period of time. Anyone earning less than £30,000 will not be repaying much of his debt during that period. Therefore, many young graduates will find themselves spending 20 or 25 years—the absolute maximum—shouldering a marginal rate of tax of 42 per cent, which is above our current top rate of tax. That is very tough at a time when graduates are trying to establish themselves with jobs, homes and a family. We fear many perverse and unintended consequences, such as a complete drying-up of applications to become doctoral students, as a result of the imposition of these fees.
	I have heard two main sets of criticisms about our stance. The first is to ask from where universities will get the resources that they need to gain from fees. My answer is, first, to point out that universities do not receive very much from those fees. They are receiving only £900 million, whereas they reckon that the current financing gap is about £2 billion. On the other hand, our proposals envisage that £2 billion a year should go into the university coffers from 2005 onwards—only £500 million net more than the Exchequer is already having to fork out to fund the Government's proposals. Unlike the Government or, if I might say so, the Opposition, we have made it very clear that we intend to finance that extra expenditure by introducing a higher, 50p-in-the-pound band rate of income tax for those earning over £100,000.
	To those who say that such a tax would make Britain uncompetitive, I respond: show me the evidence. All major European countries have top rates of tax at the 50 per cent level at least and some higher. In the United States, by the time state income taxes are added to federal taxes, very few states have a top rate of income tax as low as 50 per cent. At 1.1 per cent of GDP, Britain spends a lower proportion of its national income on higher education than practically every other advanced industrialised country. The USA, to whose participation rates we aspire, spends 2.6 per cent of GDP on higher education, of which 1.6 per cent is met from government sources.
	I do not deny that we need to spend more on nursery education, although I think that for the moment we are spending about as much as the sector can absorb. But I would argue, along with many noble Lords, that such has been the rundown in spending per student on higher education that unless we put in more resources now there will not be any universities for our nursery school children to attend in 15 years' time. Noble Lords also need to understand that in that case, in the first instance under the Government's plans, most of the money comes from the Exchequer.
	More persuasive is the criticism that argues for finding some stream of independent funding for the higher education sector, so that it can be isolated from the short-term exigencies of Treasury control. But short of ring-fencing a specific stream of tax, I cannot see how that can happen. However, I would argue that the HFCEs of this world, like the old style UGC, should be given greater freedom to make their own decisions.
	What is more, fees or no fees, the higher education sector will be substantially dependent upon the public sector for many a long year. What is particularly hypocritical about that line of argument is that, under the current proposals, which impose a cap on fees that could be lifted only by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, universities are subjected not only to the vagaries of public sector resource management but also to the whims of Parliament. In the mean time, all our universities will be exploiting as far as they can the one stream of independent income that they have—foreign students. Indeed, one of the perverse effects of the imposition of top-up fees is that in the next few years they are likely to discourage applications from English students for places in higher education and encourage the recruitment of overseas students.
	In essence, those are the arguments in favour of the set of amendments that I have tabled. I shall end by explaining each amendment. Amendment No. 39 is the key amendment and would alter Clause 23(1)(a) to read,
	"that, in respect of any qualifying course, no fees are payable by any qualifying person".
	Amendment No. 40 would eliminate paragraph (b) of Clause 23(1), leaving only paragraph (c), which provides that some point of access has to be in force. Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 would eliminate paragraphs (a) and (c) of Clause 23(3), leaving it open to the funding body to impose penalties if universities fail to comply with access agreements. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 would eliminate the references to basic and higher amounts in subsection (6). Amendment No. 79 would eliminate Clause 31(1), which establishes a procedure for setting the higher and lower amounts of fees. I beg to move.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I have some sympathy with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, but I have one difficulty. Although I am with her on the no-fees policy, I am not entirely with her on increasing income tax to 50 per cent. Fortunately, it is not for me to respond to that; it is for the Minister, as it is his Bill.
	I am concerned about one aspect of the amendments: they would leave the universities subject to an access agreement under OFFA, which is the part of the Bill that concerns me greatly. I cannot support the amendments, but I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to many of the points that the noble Baroness has made on fees. I shall not repeat them for the obvious reason that we wish to make progress this afternoon.

Lord Dearing: Perhaps I may speak very briefly. I shall not repeat my argument in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that to seek an after-graduation contribution on an income-contingent basis was equitable. I have not moved from that opinion. However, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, having seen how much Universities UK says it needs—an extra £8.7 billion—perhaps we need also the money that she talks about.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: As I understand it, the £8.7 billion is spread over a three-year period.

Lord Dearing: Yes, indeed; but it is a lot of money. From what I know of Universities UK, we must watch out for the next round, because it asked for an extra £8 billion in the last round. Universities are in sore straits over funding. Here is an equitable means of seeking some relief from their present predicament, and I think that we should take it.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I cannot support these amendments because I fear that they would leave the universities in the worst possible position: no sign of extra cash coming down the system that is clear and unambiguous and, at the same time, an extra layer of regulation and bureaucracy. Tying those two together causes real difficulty.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I share the views just expressed by the noble Lord. Of course in an ideal world I would not wish to see tuition fees at all, as I have already said. However, the noble Baroness makes the important point that, even if her amendment is rejected, there will be a striking shortfall between what the universities need and what they will get now. In her reply to the amendment, will the Minister tell us what the Government will do about that? Since there is no immediate prospect of the implementation of the tax rates that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, proposes, I predict that the Minister's answer will be that the amendment would result in a colossal shortfall. I would say to the Minister that we will have a colossal shortfall anyway, although the noble Baroness's amendment might double it. Even if it is not doubled, the shortfall will be very large. I wish to hear some words of comfort from the Minister. She made me happy the other evening, but I would be surprised if she made me happy today.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I can do no better than second the Eeyore-like tones of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. I am glad that he said what he said.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I have not spoken in our discussions on the Bill before, so I should declare an interest as Pro-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham. I shall tell the noble Baroness why I cannot support the amendments.
	Most universities—certainly the one with which I am involved—do not wish to become nationalised industries. We do not wish to depend for all our financing on the general taxpayer. Nor do we think that it would be a sound basis, as it has not proved to be a sound basis in the past. So, the noble Baroness takes us up to a high mountain and shows us the many wonderful pastures laid out, after they have introduced a 50 per cent rate of income tax for those earning over £100,000—a move that may be some way off—but, in the end, it is not an attractive vista. The attractions of the Government's proposals, which are not perfect, are that they give us a little more autonomy with regard to the resources that we receive.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and so many other noble Lords who have made important points on what, I presume, are the wrecking amendments to which the noble Baroness referred. I sense a shudder from the Liberal Democrat Benches, but I did not use the term; the noble Baroness used it. I am sorry for teasing, but I cannot resist it.
	I am sorry that I will not make the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, as happy as I made him the other evening. In all our debates, noble Lords in all parts of the Committee have recognised the shortfall that universities face. This is part of the answer, not the whole answer.
	I have indicated how university funding will grow over the next few years. We will get to £10 billion by 2005–06, if my memory serves me correctly. It will be additional funding of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, suggested, allowing universities to use as they see fit within the context of what has been said about the Director of Fair Access. I accept that it is not the complete answer, but it is progress. It is important to recognise that. I am sure that Universities UK, an organisation that represents the universities, individual institutions and, not least, noble Lords will say clearly and often to us that it is important that we continue to consider what else we can do to support universities.
	We should reject the amendments because, as noble Lords have said, they would take away not only what we propose in the Bill, which is additional funding, but the £800 million that universities collect in addition in fees. That would lead to job losses and to cuts in the number of places, and it is not in keeping with the spirit of the Liberal Democrats to want to do that. I know that the noble Baroness has moved the amendment from the perspective of a potential Liberal Democrat government. Their commitments, should they be in power, have been made clear.
	I shall concentrate on what I call the art of the possible. It is important that we recognise the number of calls upon the Exchequer and the fact that the things that governments can do across a spectrum of activity are inevitably curtailed by the amount of money available. The noble Baroness should reflect on whether a Chancellor of the Exchequer of Liberal Democrat or other hue would make this area the primary focus for additional spending.
	As it is part of the area for which I have responsibility in the department, I have made much play of the disparity between the amount of money that we spend on younger children and the amount spent on students. However, it is true that we spend far less on our youngest children. As I have said in the House many times, we are aware that, by the age of 22 months, the difference in background between children is evident in their ability to achieve. Our desire is for universities to reach out into communities that have no tradition of university education, but universities have been quick to say—rightly—that it is the responsibility of government to ensure that children get the best possible start in life, in order to obtain the educational qualifications that will entitle them to apply to those universities.
	For this Government, it is imperative that we see that our funding goes to the areas of government expenditure that need it most. As the Committee knows, the situation is that the annual sum spent per student is about £5,000, whereas we spend £1,775 on a three year-old. The noble Baroness said that we may be at saturation point. I disagree. There is far more that we can do in the Sure Start programme. I will not take up the Committee's time, but I hope that I have made that point clearly.
	It does not provide much comfort for the universities to assume that a Liberal Democrat Chancellor of the Exchequer would make them the first port of call. I do not believe that that would necessarily be the case. It is important that we go back to where the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, came in on the matter of who should take responsibility for paying. He said that it should be a combination, with society, in the shape of government, paying the most, but we should also recognise that, as we have said, university students gain a great deal from a university education. We should look elsewhere—to industry, endowments and so on—to see what more we can do to support universities. That is important for universities. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank noble Lords who participated in the debate. I am sorry that more did not support me, but I must, like Mandy Rice Davies, say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?".
	It is appropriate that there should be one party in the Chamber that says that there is an alternative. Most noble Lords who are connected with universities have swallowed hook, line and sinker the view that the Government and Universities UK have taken; namely, that there is no alternative. We have argued consistently that there is an alternative. Funding universities from the public purse, from taxation, is a feasible alternative. We are not a highly taxed country, and an extra band of income tax would not be impossible to consider or live with. The Committee has rejected that notion, and I take that on board.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said that universities did not want to be a nationalised industry: they are already. Whether they like it or no, they will remain a largely nationalised industry. They will remain substantially dependent on the public sector for financing. There will be no real alternative to that. We cannot have it both ways. It cannot be argued that universities are not under the control of the government, while rejecting what we say about the cap being lifted as soon as it can be. It will not. The Government control the cap completely.
	I return to what I said: there is a degree of hypocrisy. I understand what has been said, but my job, as an Opposition spokesman, is to point out that there is a viable alternative. It works in some countries; the Scandinavian countries have a system whereby universities are generously financed by the state. It works. In some of those countries, there are extremely highly achieving universities.
	We are contemplating a world that is, in many senses, different from the current one. We are contemplating a world in which there is a more open university system. This morning, we talked about the concept of the climbing frame for e-learning and about the ease with which people will move in and out. Those issues are for another day. I am sorry that I did not find more support in the Committee. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]

Lord Skelmersdale: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Page 9, line 18, at end insert ", and
	( ) to ensure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no qualifying fees are charged to any eligible student for any academic year beyond the first three years of a first degree course."

Lord Skelmersdale: I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who first raised the subject of fairness. This amendment will ensure that under Clause 23(1) the governing body of the relevant institutions will not be able to charge fees above the basic rate for any qualifying course beyond the first three years of a first degree course. In other words, I propose that those studying for courses such as architecture, veterinary sciences, dental sciences and medicine will be able to complete any extra years required without having to bear the cost of the fees.
	I am grateful to the British Medical Association for raising this problem with us. It has calculated that the measures contained in the Bill could lead to a medical student in London incurring a maximum debt of just over £64,000. It claims that the Government have not produced any figures whatever to disprove that, and it argues that a student's family with a residual income of £20,000 will be committing itself to 91 per cent more debt if the student chooses to study medicine rather than follow a three-year degree. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could enlighten me as to her thoughts regarding the position of such students.
	The increased levels of debt that medical students will incur will cause them to think twice about studying medicine, regardless of their social background. Laboratory-based subjects, such as medicine, are among the most expensive courses for a university to provide, with teaching costs per student of around £10,500 a year. Thus, those universities are likely to charge the maximum fee of £3,000.
	It is true that in his wind-up speech at Second Reading the Secretary of State announced that a "gateway to the professions" review will begin, but only after the Bill is passed, in order to assess the impact of variable fees on such professionals and to look into this area further. I argue that we should put this amendment in place to ensure that, in a comparison of the effect of variable fees on such professions, they are on a par with those for other undergraduate courses and between themselves in so much as they can be for this review. We should not wait up to seven years for a medic fully to complete his or her training before a full and proper assessment can be made of the detrimental effect or otherwise of variable fees.
	Architects are in much the same position. The figure of £30,000 of debt incurred by one of my noble friend's research assistants, to whom I referred the other day, would be about half what she would need once this Bill is enacted, should she elect to follow one of these professional degree courses. As I said, not being in the public sector, architects are as badly off, if not worse off. They have to study for five years in the institution and for two years in practice before passing their professional exams.
	I calculate that the average debt per student will be at least £57,000 in London. I accept that that figure may be a little lower elsewhere. But it is not generally realised that during the two years of practical experience that they must undertake as part of their professional course, they are very badly paid. I believe that the average is about £10,000 a year. They have to subsidise their own living costs, and therefore the £57,000 debt that I mentioned is probably on the modest side.
	Whatever happens to student fees once the Bill is on the statute book, I am concerned that all students, whatever they choose to study, should be treated equally and fairly. I beg to move.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I support the point made by my noble friend, although I am not sure that I fully agree with the solution that he proposes. As many noble Lords will know, quite a few first degree courses in English universities are now four-year courses. In a number of universities, that is certainly true in the case of the sciences and engineering. That means that many students on those courses will be faced with a heavier debt burden in terms of fees, and no doubt in terms of maintenance. These are sometimes the very subjects that the Government are trying to encourage. In fact, it is not so long ago that I read about a Minister—presumably in the Department for Education and Skills—who said that the Government were giving consideration to waiving, or diminishing in some way, fees for courses in physics. Noble Lords opposite will be aware of the dire situation of applications, and consequently of admissions, in subjects such as physics and chemistry. Therefore, there will be very serious consequential end products when this Bill is implemented.
	My noble friend made the case for medicine. Although some medics may well earn a very healthy income when they graduate, I am not certain that they will earn that much more than lawyers, for example. Some lawyers complete their graduation procedures—certainly their initial procedures—more rapidly than medics. My noble friend also mentioned architecture. That is a very good case in point. As I understand it, the current level of unemployment for architecture graduates is fairly high. One can predict a complete collapse of applications in architecture if the point made by my noble friend is not taken on board.
	The only thing that prevents me giving my wholehearted support to the amendment is that, as on a previous occasion only an hour or two ago, the issue of university income has not been sufficiently considered. The consequence of this amendment is to deny additional fee income to the universities. If my noble friend had said that students should be obliged to pay only three years' worth of tuition fees for their first degree, or whatever the correct terminology may be, and that, beyond that, it would be paid by the Government, the consequence of the amendment would not be a reduction in the income to universities. I disagreed only a few moments ago with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, precisely because the consequence would be a striking reduction in university income with no evident compensation in the near future, despite her understandable aspirations to be the Minister for Education in just a couple of years' time.
	I very much take the weight of the point made by my noble friend, but I do not think that the answer is simply to say, "Let the universities take the pain and pay the difference" because, as we have heard, and as the noble Baroness opposite has more or less acknowledged, they cannot afford to.

Lord Skelmersdale: Does my noble friend accept that I am trying to amend the Bill, not the Red Book?

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: It would have been a simple matter in amending the Bill, with all respect, to table an amendment along the lines that I have just indicated.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope that when the noble Baroness replies to the debate she does not simply say that everything will be all right after the review. This is basic to the Government's policy. They are talking of fees for students. Many students have to study for more than three years and all the circumstances prevail that have been mentioned. The Bill simply must not leave Parliament with those people uncatered for. It is no good hiding behind a review. I hope that the noble Baroness does not do that.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: As with Amendment No. 37, my initial reaction is that the amendment has noble aspirations. However, on reflection I am not convinced that in the long term it would be equitable. I know that architects are not paid as well as general practitioners. I am glad, for example, that noble Lords have repeatedly referred in the discussions on the Bill to the fact that academics are not adequately paid. However, I do not think that that is the way to deal with the problem. Therefore, I am reluctant to support the amendment.
	I should like to ask for a point of clarification. I do not know whether this should be addressed to the noble Lord moving the amendment or to the Minister. I am someone who was sensible enough to go to a Scottish university, rather than to an English one, which had a four years honours course and where an MA is awarded for work rather than for money. I should like to know whether, if I had a fifth child and she or he wanted, from a Fareham base, to study at a Scottish university where the four year honours course is de rigeur, that child would benefit from the amendment.

Lord Winston: Very briefly, it is my impression that in other countries such as the United States where students continue to pay fees for a particular course as long as they are at university, this has not acted as a major disincentive for entry to a particular course. When the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she might address what evidence there is from other countries which have such experience. I think that would help in consideration of the amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: First, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that I do not intend to hide behind anything; that is not my wont. However, I shall be talking about the review because it is important in this context, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has just challenged me to produce evidence from other countries. I am not sure whether I shall be able to do that in the course of my reply. None the less, it is important to look carefully. These are important issues and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for ensuring that we are debating these issues because they are of great significance.
	I understand the issues raised by noble Lords about considering the package of support, particularly in the context raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, of architects and doctors or medics. But, as the noble Lord said, there are other professions in this context too.
	I shall speak briefly about the five main groups which have been mentioned: education—interestingly, education was not raised but noble Lords would be astonished if I did not raise it—medicine and dentistry, which are linked; architecture, and veterinary medicine. I shall speak first about what happens in education because it is important to give a flavour of what is being undertaken. This is not about leaving things until the legislation takes effect; it is about looking at what happens now.
	Those who train as teachers by taking a postgraduate course do not have to pay the standard fee for that course and we provide incentives: a £6,000 training bursary to students on postgraduate certificate of education (PGCE) courses and a £4,000 golden "hello" for those who qualify as teachers in priority subjects, which is about one-third of those students. The department is spending about £230 million in 2003–04 on those measures and we believe that that is working. Noble Lords may be interested to know—I was surprised at the figures—that there are 50 per cent more teachers training than there were five years ago, which is an indication of the popularity of teaching.
	I turn to medical and dentistry students. As noble Lords will know, my department has responsibility for fee support for English domiciled medical and dentistry students in years one to four. During that time those students have the same support as other eligible higher education students. They also benefit from the additional week's loan entitlement when their term lasts longer than the usual 30 weeks.
	Currently, medical and dentistry students have their fees paid for the fifth year and, where there is one, the sixth year of their courses by the National Health Service. In addition, as noble Lords will know in years five and six they may also receive a means-tested NHS bursary of up to £2,703 in London. They also remain eligible for the lower level of student loan for living costs.
	We do not anticipate that there will be a significant effect on applications for these courses as a result of the introduction of higher fees, particularly when we look at the existing situation. Applications to medical schools have gone up since 1998.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, talked about the BMA £64,000 debt figures. There are some issues about how those figures were arrived at. We have calculated that the maximum a six-year medical student will owe is likely to be around £40,000. Of course many students will owe far less than that because of the grants and bursaries.
	The average figure for newly qualified medical graduates in hospital posts is about £35,000 per annum. They would be paying back £34.62 per week on the basis of the proposals. I add that at the moment they pay £43.27. In that sense they would be paying back a lower amount.
	As we have said, we shall continue to monitor demand for and take up of places on medical courses after the introduction of fees and we will consider measures to safeguard the supply of students.
	The noble Lord focused particularly on architecture. My next comments will be on that because I believe it is very important. Currently the five-year course of undergraduate study is covered by the same package of student support as that of other full-time students. Interestingly, architecture features one of the biggest increases in accepted applications. Architecture courses have seen a rise of 10.3 per cent in the last year, which demonstrates its popularity as a profession .
	Once an architecture graduate starts working after his or her course, he or she would be no worse off in terms of monthly repayments. In fact, an architecture graduate on £18,000 per year, which I believe is the figure for an architectural assistant, will be £37.50 per month better off than he or she is now.
	I recognise noble Lords' concerns about the professions. We recognise that we need to ensure that we measure the effect on the professions and safeguard them.
	At this point I shall enter the world of the review by Sir Alan Langlands, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Dundee, who is a very eminent gentleman.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend to ask her to clarify something, which perhaps many understand but I do not. Are these repayment figures on gross income or on net income after tax?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is on gross income. I hope that answers that question.

Lord Skelmersdale: I thought it was net—after tax, in other words.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The question I thought was when you are earning £15,000 a year, which is a gross figure, that would be the amount that would be paid. If that was not the question that the noble Lord asked me then I shall deal with the one he did ask. But the gross figure when one starts to repay is £15,000 plus. That is the question I thought the noble Lord asked. If it was not, I am quite happy to answer his question appropriately.
	The important purpose of Sir Alan's report is to look at sustaining and improving recruitment opportunities for graduates.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am most grateful to the Minister. I am now confused on this point. The Minister seemed to imply that the sum was gross, which would imply that the repayment was not subject to tax. Surely the position is that it is net; that the loan has to be paid out of income after tax has been paid.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that. I thought I heard a different question, which is whether we were describing the £15,000 as net or gross. It is gross. I hope that clarifies the position. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for doing so.

Lord Campbell-Savours: The point I am making is that the actual figure is nearer £60 out of gross income.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: If the noble Lord wishes to look at it in that way then he would not be incorrect. Actually, it is quite common to look at net figures in terms of the repayments. I do not think I have misled anyone in what I have been saying. Indeed, I suspect that everyone was aware of what I was trying to say. But if my noble friend has further problems with that, I shall be very happy to write or to discuss the matter with him.
	The purpose of Sir Alan's review is very important. It will be reporting by mid 2005. That is also important in the light of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It is very important that the review takes place. It is looking at the recruitment and sustaining of the professions. Sir Alan is well placed to be able to do that.
	However, that does not mean that in the mean time employers in both the private and public sectors would not be trying to ensure that we do not deter students from joining the professions, which are so important. It is very important in that context to refer back to what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said about a misinterpretation with regard to physics. It was not the Government but some institutions that were beginning to think about variability. The point about variability, as I have said before in this Chamber, is the ability to vary fees downwards, so that universities have the opportunity, if they so wish—and it is entirely up to them—to recruit more physics students and to vary the fee downwards.
	That is an important part of setting universities free to think about opportunities. The disadvantage of a fixed fee is that it is a fixed fee, and that is it. But there are opportunities to do things that are slightly different.

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I will develop a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, with respect to physics and engineering, but more generally with respect to the natural sciences, where there are four-year courses. These are not areas where recruitment is buoyant; they are areas where recruitment is difficult because of the numbers of qualified sixth formers. They are also areas where costs of provision of courses are high. They are important to the country and to schools, because these are areas where we desperately need more teachers who have studied the subjects in depth. They are also areas where many universities have closed their departments. King's College, London has closed its chemistry department. A recent casualty is Swansea, which is closing its department. We cannot wait for a review before we know what the terms and conditions for students studying the natural sciences on four-year courses will be.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am not suggesting that we have to wait for a review to look at the terms and conditions. We have set this out clearly. As the noble Baroness will know, many of the courses that she describes are three-year courses. We are clear about the package of student support that we have offered to students. The noble Baroness made an important point. As Minister last year with responsibility for science, I was much taken in talking to people in chemical engineering, civil engineering, physics, and other sciences to ensure that we are able to recruit the right numbers of students with the right kind of qualifications into the right professions.
	That is why in teaching, for example, we offer packages to try to encourage people to think about going into those areas of teaching where we have shortages. That is very important, and it is important to the private sector as well; it is not just a public sector phenomenon. These are issues that are in our minds at all times, in our discussions with universities, and universities in their discussions with other bodies. The point about Sir Alan Langlands's work is to focus specifically on what more we would and should be doing. It is important to allow that work to take place, but it is in conjunction with public, private and voluntary sector employers. It is not just about what the Government do.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Baroness could ease our minds considerably if she acknowledged that some of these longer courses are in fact the most valuable in terms of the professions and the subjects taught. There is the corollary, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, of the closure of the science department at Swansea. That is because of the proliferation of the less worthwhile courses. An assurance that these longer, more worthwhile courses will be safeguarded—and similarly that the proliferation of the less worthwhile courses will be discouraged—would be reassuring.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is not for the Government to discourage universities from putting on the courses that they think are appropriate. I would not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in determining that long equals better. For example, in this country we are desperately short of social workers, who have three-year courses. We really need to enhance that profession, for all the reasons that have been too evident in recent times. Noble Lords know well that those are three-year courses, and they are important to this country. There are many two-year foundation degrees that are important. It is not that long equals important, but I accept the critical importance of some of the professions. I do not dispute that for one moment. That is why the NHS plays the part that it does in paying off fees. That is why we are looking to ensure that the professions have the opportunity. We should value that.
	We would not wish to support the amendments for the reasons that have been given. We do, I hope, wish to engender a sense in the House that we recognise the value and importance of the professions, and that as a government we will work with the professions and with the universities, also through Sir Alan Langlands's review, to ensure that we do as much as we can to support, sustain, encourage and grow in all the professions—however long the courses are—to ensure that we have the right numbers of people that we need to create the society that we all want.

Lord Sewel: Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I advise her to address, either now or later in the debate, the question that was raised on the position of English-domiciled students studying in Scotland, and Scottish-domiciled students studying in England. This question was raised by the right reverend Prelate. Does she have a comment on the pernicious argument that is being heard in Scotland that somehow Scottish universities should limit the number of English-domiciled students attending Scottish universities?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord will understand that I would rather leave a discussion of the second issue until a later stage, when we will have the opportunity to debate that, either today or at another time, but certainly during the passage of the Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is very keen to ensure that we do. At the present time, the Quigley arrangements are in place, which is that the fourth year is paid. Fourth year fees are waived for English students in Scotland. The Scottish Executive is considering the future position and we are expecting a report shortly.

Lord Sewel: Many of us will be influenced in our attitude to the Bill by the view the Scottish Executive takes, and we will wish to have that position resolved before we have to take a definitive view on the Bill.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: That may well be the case, but it is for the Scottish Executive to determine that.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Before the noble Baroness sits down, might it not have been very much simpler if all these matters had been resolved under the "Sewel procedure" and then we would not be in the position where we were having to wait for the Scottish Executive?

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: While we are on the subject of Scotland, have the Government talked to the Scottish universities and, indeed, the Scottish Executive, about their present system and how they deal with fees which are paid later on courses which are four years or more? There is a system which has worked up to now and it will have to be changed because of the Bill. There is a system which has worked regarding the fees for doctors, architects, and so on. Has the Minister talked to the Scottish Executive? Or if she cannot wait for that she could talk to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who is Vice-Principal of the University of Aberdeen, who knows very much more about that than I do.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I have deep reluctance about getting into a debate on Scottish issues at this stage, for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows. But there are always dialogues about what is happening in the UK and Scotland, and I argue that we have in place some very good mechanisms for courses that are four years and beyond. What we have asked Sir Alan Langlands to do, in the light of our new proposals, is to look at a range of issues concerning sustainability and improvement for those we wish to attract into the profession. I believe that is the way forward.

Lord Skelmersdale: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and particularly, perhaps, to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, for putting her finger on the point I was trying to make, which was about the review and the timing of the review, and things like that. I am grateful too to my noble friend Lord Renfrew for his—how can I describe it?—half-hearted support for my ideas.
	The question by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was very fair. I am afraid I cannot answer it; nor indeed could the Minister. But I am sure that from one or other source he will get an answer in due course, probably in writing.
	As to the English/Scottish border issues, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth. If the Committee and individual Members of the Committee would be prepared to contain their souls' impatience for what I hope will be only a little longer, all—or perhaps not, but certainly a certain amount—will be revealed.
	The problem with the Minister's arguments was that she was mixing up two things. If this debate were being conducted in a different atmosphere—and perhaps in a different place—I might have commented on the Government producing subsidies, even bribery, to get people to work in the public sector, in the teaching profession, in the university and academic world, in medicine, and so on. But although it was the BMA that raised the problem with me I am much more concerned with those professional courses that rarely lead to public sector jobs. Therefore, I shall have to consider carefully what the Minister said.
	The Minister did not tell me when the department is planning to publish its assessment of the new fees system—either her own department or the Department of Health. Nor did she indicate how long the "gateway to the professions" review will take and when it will report, although she told me who was undertaking it, for which I am grateful. It may be my fault for not hearing her say it, but given that we are more and more pressed for time I do not expect her to answer now. I shall read Hansard carefully and if necessary correspond with her before deciding what to do in the future. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 46:
	Page 10, line 20, at end insert—
	"( ) In imposing any condition under this section, the funding authorities shall have regard to the position of part-time and mature students."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 88 and 104. Amendment No. 46 is a small and seemingly innocuous amendment. Its main purpose is to add to Clause 23 that for any conditions imposed by the English funding bodies under the clause the same funding authorities shall have regard to the position of part-time and mature students. All the other amendments in this group relate to the position of part-time and mature students.
	I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, would be able to move his Amendment No. 66, but he has unfortunately had to leave for another engagement. I believe he has asked for his amendment to be degrouped and will speak separately to it later.
	Because your Lordships have heard my voice rather often I had hoped that other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rix, would take the main part of the debate. I do not want to spend too long explaining what it is all about because I know that others wanted to say a great deal. But I shall set the scene. As many of your Lordships know there are 1,800,000 students in Britain today. Of that 1,800,000 students, 800,000 are part-timers; 42 per cent of the students in Britain today.
	We have two specialist institutions for part-timers. The Open University, which is far and away the largest of any of our universities, has over 200,000 students. Birkbeck College, which is a specialist college for part-timers within the London University complex, has about 3,000 students. But as is apparent, other universities, particularly but not exclusively the post-1992 universities, also cater extensively for part-time students.
	Yet in the Bill there is only one mention of part-time students. That is in Clause 38, where it is proposed that all the provisions should not apply to part-time students. But, as I say, there are very large numbers of such students in this country.
	When we were discussing the 50 per cent target we referred to the expansion of universities, to the development of foundation degrees—I, for one, am sorry that we have dropped the term "HND" in favour of "foundation degree"—and to the fact that many of those whom we are now trying to attract to degree level education and level four training of one kind or another will be part-timers. It is therefore extremely important that we consider the position of part-timers within the package of proposals being put forward.
	Most of these people will be doing precisely what the Government want them to do—that is, improving themselves; upgrading their skills and working for vocational and technical qualifications. Many of them will enter two-year courses as stepping stones to further qualifications. Given the emphasis that the Government place on this new part-time route to higher education and wider participation, it is illogical that they should ignore part-time students in the Bill. As I said, the only reference is in Clause 38(1), which excludes part-time courses from consideration. In addition, there was hardly any mention of part-time students in the White Paper.
	It is a myth that most part-time students are funded by their employers. Only one-fifth are funded by their employers; four-fifths pay their own fees. As has been remarked, part-time students are already paying fees up front and qualify for little, if any, support towards their expenses while they are studying.
	As I said, there was hardly any mention of part-timers in the White Paper; their fees are paid up front and they have little access to loans. Whereas full-time students are now being offered the facility of substantial loans which have to be paid back after graduation, part-timers have to pay everything up front.
	This catches some institutions and part-time students in two ways. Currently the average fee is £570 a year. If there is no increase in the fee level, institutions with part-time students will not gain the increased income of other universities and will be disadvantaged in that respect. As far as the students are concerned, they will have no access to low-interest loans. There is a means-tested £250 grant for part-time students, but many of them have no access to that grant and receive no help with living costs. Given the generous terms now being offered to full-time students, many people may prefer not to study part-time and switch to being full-time students. So the present proposals discriminate against both institutions and part-time students to some extent.
	Given the fact that there will now be fees and that living costs are rising, many students who wish to follow the part-time route may feel that the present package discriminates against them and be dissuaded from taking it. Rather than taking on debt, they may feel that they do not want to move into higher education at all.
	In conclusion, perhaps I may make one suggestion as to what might be done for part-timers. As I have indicated, four-fifths of part-time students are paying their own fees. Those fees are paid from taxed income. In most cases, they are paying those fees in order to take courses that upgrade their skills and improve their qualifications. Where that is the case, would it not be reasonable for the Government to grant them tax relief on the fees that they have paid? Will the Government consider that idea? Given that employers are able to write off fees as an expense against their tax liabilities, it would be quite reasonable perhaps for individual students to be able to do so too. With that thought in mind, I beg to move.

Baroness Lockwood: I have tabled two amendments in this group. Amendment No. 84 is limited in its scope, but it would ensure that part-time courses are included in the plans that higher education institutions have to prepare under the new access arrangements. It would not mean that universities and other institutions have to include part-time courses, but where they do make such provision, those courses would be regarded as a part of their access programme.
	My second amendment, Amendment No. 105, is more extensive in its scope. It would remove the exclusion of part-time education from the provisions of the Act as set out in Clause 38(1). The amendment would provide for the inclusion of part-time courses that last for at least one year and/or part-time courses that do not exceed twice the length of full-time courses. That would enable most university part-time courses to come within the scope of the Bill and enable part-time students to have the same financial provisions on a pro rata basis as full-time students.
	In moving her own amendment on this issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, went into great detail about the disadvantages faced by part-time students when compared with full-time students. I do not intend to repeat what she said, but I endorse completely the case that she is putting forward for the inclusion of part-time students. After all, 42 per cent represents a high proportion of those in higher education. If, as we are led to believe, part-time study is to become a major part of widening access, we surely need to remove the distinction between the two groups.
	The institutions providing part-time courses need the same support for those courses as they do for their full-time courses. Again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has indicated, the institutions which concentrate entirely on part-time study—like Birkbeck College and the Open University—are at a particular disadvantage. Birkbeck in particular feels there is a danger that, if it were to introduce a pro rata increase in fees, its students—who largely pay their own fees—would withdraw from higher education altogether. That is something we do no want to happen. I would like the Minister to comment on this anomaly in the system.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I share some of the concerns that have already been expressed about the differences in treatment between part-time and full-time students. I hope that noble Lords will agree that OFFA ought not to micro-manage institutions' widening participation strategies. OFFA should be concerned with widening participation and efforts to widen access generally, and not with reference either to particular courses of study—which is the subject of other amendments—and which I am very concerned about, or particular modes of study, such as part-time.
	There is nothing in this legislation that would prevent institutions from making specific reference to part-time students in their plans. However, neither is there anything to require it, and I think that is the right approach. I note too that efforts to reach out to potential students are likely to impact on students' decisions to embark on both full-time and part-time courses. In terms of outreach activities, it is as likely that part-time student numbers will be increased as full-time students.
	Noble Lords will know that Universities UK has pressed the Government for movement towards greater equity of treatment between full and part-time students. Part-time students account for 40 per cent of all students in higher education. That proportion is bound to increase, as is movement—and again my noble friend Lady Lockwood has mentioned this—by individual students from full-time to part-time courses and vice versa, as current trends already show. I believe that point has been consistently made by Members of this House, and as I understand it, the Government have taken note of it. In fact, I recall a helpful statement by the Minister in another place, where he recognised that the Government had some way to go. However, I do welcome that statement and I welcome the recognition that there is more to be done.
	To be fair to the Government, they have begun to move in the right direction by announcing real improvements to the support available to part-time students—including the introduction of grants, albeit at a low level. I join noble Lords in calling on the Government to address this at the earliest opportunity. However, I accept that improvements to the support available to part-time students, including fee support, needs to be made on the basis of evidence. We are rather lacking in evidence about the nature of part-time students across the board. I support the Government's intention to include part-time students in the Student Income and Expenditure Survey, but I think the Government will be judged on whether—once that survey produces its results—they act on the basis of the evidence produced, and come forward with appropriate proposals.
	One other point is that the costs for teaching part-time students have not been fully recognised in the English Funding Council's funding methodology. I know that that has been a cause of great concern to universities, particularly those with large numbers of part-time students. Noble Lords, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, have spoken eloquently on behalf of the Open University, and my noble friend Lady Lockwood has also referred to the OU and to Birkbeck. I warmly welcome their staunch support of those institutions in this House. I also welcome the review of the HEFCE funding methodology which the funding council is currently undertaking. Can the Minister offer an assurance that the results of that review will be taken into account when the Government consider the funding of the sector in the next spending review?

Lord Dearing: I do not wish to speak to the amendments and I wish to be very brief. If I recall, more people spoke on the part-time issue at Second Reading than on any other. They and many outside this Chamber will be hoping today to hear some further enlightenment from the Minister on the direction in which the Government's thinking is going.

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I yield to no one in my admiration for part-time students but, in my experience, they are an extremely heterogeneous group that includes the most prosperous students in the country. That is because if one is doing a job that pays reasonably well, one will think twice about becoming a full-time student, but one may have the energy to be a part-time student. Time was—not very long ago—when some universities, such as the University of Essex, at which I then taught, had a rule that part-time study was open only to those in employment who could get minor release from their employers for their study.
	We should not imagine that part-time students are, without exception, among the needier category of students. I hope that their needs will be addressed but I do not think that it can be done, as it were, in passing in this legislation, because of the complexity and diversity of the category's composition. The same goes for mature students, who often include people doing a second BA, having perhaps already been publicly funded for their first BA and now thinking that they will move their interests into a new field of endeavour.
	Of course, there are extremely needy cases among part-time students, as among full time-students. That often owes to caring or childcare obligations. However, there are very complicated issues about the incentives for part-time and full-time study, so I hope that we will not hurry in that area.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On the other hand, the Open University, on the council of which I had the privilege of serving for 12 years, as well as serving on its finance committee, has a very large number of students who either do not work or earn low salaries. The Open University takes a great deal of trouble to test the market when it sets its fees. It has variable fees, and they vary very much according to what it thinks that potential students will pay.
	I had not prepared a speech about the Open University because I hoped that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who is its chancellor, would have done so. However, she has not been able to attend this afternoon. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is not in her place either; she knows the subject very well because of Birkbeck College. I cannot fill in all the details at the moment, but I note that the Open University is very anxious that there be some first-aid measure in the Bill to carry it through until the review is complete, so that it can take advantage of it.
	The Open University has estimated what would happen if it set its fees at £1,500 per part-time course, which would match the £3,000 for full-time students. It now has 140,000 undergraduates, and it would have only 14,000 as a result of those fees, taking into account the recent announcement of grants. There is a very serious problem for the Open University. Everyone in the Committee knows that it is hugely important in our undergraduate provision. It would be disastrous if the Bill, in attempting to help full-time students, had that effect on the Open University.
	I hope that the Government are taking the matter very seriously. Representatives of the Open University have apparently met Ministers twice so far, and have not had much help. I do not believe that the Government realise quite what they are doing to the Open University with the Bill. It is such a success, with its variable fees, that it is easy to think that that success will continue. However, the Bill will have an enormous effect on it. I hope that we will see some amendment before the Bill leaves Parliament.

Baroness Seccombe: The question of funding for part-time students was eloquently raised, as we have heard, by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. She highlighted the fact that despite this Bill's proposal to raise £1 billion, not one penny of that money will go to institutions such as the Open University or Birkbeck College. Part-time students make up just over 40 per cent of all students in higher education, almost all of them being aged over 21.
	This seems to me just another example of a lack of joined-up thinking by the Government. There is a technical flaw in the Bill: the Government cannot impose top-up fees on the higher education institutions who cater for full-time students without giving special consideration to the treatment of part-time students. They must not just pay the lip service that has been paid so far. This is the only way to ensure that they are not financially disadvantaged in the marketplace, leaving their students swimming in a pool of uncertainty.
	The Universities' Association for Adult Continuing Education (UACE) argues that this Bill is inequitable because it excludes dealing with the issue of part-time students. As pointed out by so many noble Lords, there are major concerns that higher education institutions that teach part-time students will not have access to any of the new moneys that will flow via this Bill. The Government have proposed a review of funding to address the imbalance between part-time and full-time students, but as so many noble Lords have said, it is unlikely to take effect before 2007 at the earliest, and that is too far away.
	Despite the Minister's assurances at Second Reading that,
	"there is much that we have to offer the Open University in the passage of this Bill,"—[Official Report, 19/4/04; col. 15.]
	We understand that, despite meetings, there is currently nothing realistic on the table. Under the Government's current proposals on student finance as outlined in the Bill, from 2006 full-time students will pay back their fees after graduation. This is not true, however, for those on part-time courses. The student support arrangements are changing from 2004 to give them means-tested grants of up to 50 per cent of the full-time fee—estimated at £575. Those on incomes of between £14,600 and £21,487 will get partial support. Part-time loans are being replaced by a course grant of up to £250, and institutions can at their discretion waive part-timers' tuition fees. Unlike full-time courses, the fees for part-timers already vary according to the course being studied.
	There will be no facility for part-time students to repay their fees at a rate they can afford, or benefit from interest-free repayments. Employers will help some students, but not many. About 16 per cent of Open University students receive financial help from their employers. Surely it is in the interests of the economy that people are enabled to study flexibly on a part-time basis—because they can do so from home while continuing to work and, maybe, maintaining a family.
	Professor David Latchman of Birkbeck College argues that if the Government and the Higher Education Funding Council for England are serious about part-time study, they should "develop a funding system that supports it".
	So I ask the Minister: can she tell the House what her department has done to ensure that the resources available to the Open University to teach part-time undergraduate students are not less than those available to other institutions teaching full-time students? Can she comment on how she plans to increase unit funding for part-time students? What progress have the Government made on putting together an alternative "first-aid" solution, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, as an interim measure while awaiting this 2007 review?
	This is a very important issue that highlights the one-sided priorities of this Government, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this issue.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am pleased that we have the opportunity to discuss part-time students. I say immediately to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that I am equally interested to hear her proposals on behalf of her party for part-time students in higher education. I agree that they are an important group of people and I hope to offer the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, further enlightenment—but the hour grows late and perhaps it will not be as enlightening as he would have hoped.
	I am sorry that we do not have with us today noble Lords for whom this is an issue of great passion and interest. As the group contains amendments tabled by noble Lords who are not present, I suspect that this may be the first of several debates on the subject. Perhaps I may therefore put on the record a reply which I hope will be of value overall, recognising that we may return to the subject during the Committee stage and at later stages of the Bill.
	Members of the Committee have indicated the important work of the Open University, and my views are in accordance with theirs. This party on this side of the Committee is rightly proud of the Open University because it is a great institution. I am sorry if it does not feel that my meetings with it were of great value. I understood from the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, when she left the meeting in which I took part with my right honourable friend the Minister for Higher Education, that she was satisfied with what we had discussed. If that is not the case, I shall endeavour to do better next time. Dialogues are in place and it is important that we continue to talk with the Open University and other institutions. I am sorry that I misinterpreted the situation.
	I also attended meetings in your Lordships' House with NIACE, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and am keen to continue that dialogue. My door, as they say, is open on that basis.
	The Open University accounts for only 20 per cent of the numbers of part-time higher education students in the UK, so it is right to indicate that 80 per cent of students are not of the OU. Therefore, this is an issue that we need to think of more broadly with institutions such as Birkbeck and many others. It is being said by your Lordships that not enough is being done to support students and I have sympathy with that view.
	I want to be clear from the beginning where we are with our support for part-time students. In my discussions with noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, I was able to explain for the benefit of noble Lords a little more about what we are currently doing. It is worth remembering, too, that as recently as 1997 there was no financial support of any kind for part-time students. I am therefore pleased that we have introduced measures designed to help part-time students, beginning with the fee-waiver schemes managed by universities. We expanded the scheme in 1999–2000, as we did the hardship fund scheme. Part-time students as well as undergraduates and postgraduates who were in financial difficulties were entitled to some help.
	In 2000–01, statutory support for part-time students was introduced. As well as being eligible for a loan to cover course costs, part-time students also became eligible for disabled students allowances. That is important in enabling those with disabilities to access a range of non-repayable grants.
	In the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, which is familiar to the Committee, a specific amendment was made to ensure that part-time students applied to different learning courses as well as traditional study—an important area, I would argue. This meant that students at the Open University, studying for the first time, and other institutions which provide distance learning could receive statutory financial support.
	But as my right honourable friend the Minister for Higher Education said in another place, the Government have not paid enough attention to part-time students in the past. It is changing and I hope that noble Lords will recognise the steps we have taken so far.
	The White Paper in 2003 made the first commitment to statutory fee and course grant support—as opposed to loans—for part-time students. These new grants will come into force in the academic year 2004–05. This new package includes the fee grant of up to £575, which replaces the discretionary fee waiver scheme, and a course grant of up to £250 in place of the part-time loan. I make no bones about it—the loan system which we introduced in 2000–01 did not turn out to be popular. Take-up rates were disappointingly low. That reflects the fact that part-time students' needs are different from those of full-time students, whose take-up of maintenance loans is very high because they need the money to live on. We must think about treating part-time students equitably, but that does not mean treating them identically, because their needs are different.
	For the grants that have replaced fee loans, the income threshold for support is £14,600, which is higher than that which applied to part-time loans and the fee-waiver scheme. Unlike with part-time loans, for which entitlement was assessed on an all-or-nothing basis, students with incomes higher than the threshold will qualify for partial support. A single student with an income above £14,600 and up to £21,487 will be entitled to support on a sliding scale.
	Those new part-time grants will give better coverage than the loans that they replace. They are much more attractive because they are grants and no age limit applies—they are available to older students who would not have qualified for the loan. We are also trying to improve the discretionary help available to students through their institution. From 2004–05, part-time students can apply for childcare grants available from the Access to Learning fund. In addition, for the first time those studying less intensively will qualify for support. Students who undertake taster modules will be eligible for fee waivers and course-related costs from the Access to Learning fund, subject to their income.
	That is a great deal of improvement over a relatively short time. Of course, we would like to do more, but we recognise that future improvements must target our resources in the best possible way. Before we can plan any changes, we need to know the circumstances of part-time students, particularly their incomes and the costs that they incur while studying. We wish to take steps to address that.
	Noble Lords would be concerned to see the Bill go by without having the opportunity to respond. Perhaps I can reassure them that it is true that the fee provisions in the Bill do not apply to part-time courses. However, part-time fees have always been unregulated and will continue to be so, therefore there is no need for the provisions to allow the variability that we propose for full-time courses.
	Fee deferral is dealt with in Clause 40, which is not restricted to full-time courses. We do not propose to extend fee deferral to part-time students, as noble Lords are aware. But the Bill's provisions are drafted sufficiently widely to allow us to do so in the future, if in the light of the evidence that we collect we wished to do that.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, said, the variety of part-time courses and students is wide. We are conducting another full-scale student income and expenditure survey. For the first time it will cover full-time and part-time students, young and mature, including those at the Open University. That will provide an authoritative study on higher-education students in the UK and in particular will take into account the new package for part-time students introduced this autumn. It will give us valuable data on part-time students that will enable us to consider future student support arrangements. That is a very important aspect.
	We have also commissioned through the Open University's Department of Educational Technology a small-scale survey in advance of the main one, which we hope will also help to inform our work. In the light of what Members of the Committee have said about teaching, it is worth saying that the Higher Education Funding Council for England is conducting a fundamental review of how it allocates its teaching funding. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in another place on 8 January, a major focus of that review will be how the funding system might further support the development of part-time study. That is another important part of our work.
	I am very conscious of time, so I shall respond briefly to the amendments that Members of the Committee have tabled. The effects of Amendment No. 46 are not clear. I can see what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, wishes to do, but it is not clear that there would be a meaningful legal effect on that basis. On Amendments Nos. 104 and 105, Members of the Committee will be aware that institutions have always been free to determine the level at which fees are charged for part-time courses. It is up to institutions to determine that, and we do not believe that we should regulate part-time fees, as that would impose new restrictions on institutions where there had not been restrictions before. I do not believe that that would be the will of the Committee in any event.
	Noble Lords mentioned support for mature students, which is very important. Many of the proposals will help older students. They will also be the main beneficiaries of the adult dependants grant, which is worth £2,280. They will also be eligible for additional funding through the government-funded Access to Learning programme, which is administered by institutions. We are making progress in supporting mature students in the context that I have set out.
	I am reluctant to go into more detail, although I shall do so if the Committee wishes. I think that I have given a general overview of the direction in which the Government are moving. We have made inroads into supporting part-time students, and we recognise and value the role of the Open University and other institutions. We wish to conduct the survey. Clause 40 gives us scope to do something on fee deferral, if, in future, we wish to do so. I do not wish to regulate where we have not regulated before. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that full reply to our amendments. As other noble Lords mentioned, there was a great deal of discussion at Second Reading of the position of part-time students. I am sorry that the noble Baronesses, Lady Boothroyd and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, are not present. We will have a lot of discussion of the same issues, when the noble Lord, Lord Rix, brings his amendment back. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will talk to his amendment and wishes particularly to refer to the position of Birkbeck.
	As the Minister said, it is right and proper that the Government should know the dimensions of the problem. It is extraordinary that, until now, part-time students have not been included in the student income and expenditure survey. I welcome the fact that we will have the facts before us. I am pleased at the degree to which the Government have increased provision for part-time students over the past few years. As the Minister said, there was practically nothing back in 1997. Gradually, one or two things have come forward, and we are pleased to see that. However, as always, we must ask, "When is 'enough' enough?". It is something of a problem.
	In particular, I am glad to hear of the Minister's ongoing discussions with Birkbeck and the Open University. It is vital, as the Minister said, to remember that they are not the only institutions providing part-time education. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will be present on a subsequent occasion, given her experience at Birkbeck and the fact that she is about to take up a post at the University of Greenwich. She speaks from a lot of experience and knows the problems that she will have to cope with.
	In the light of the fact that we shall return to the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 not moved.]
	Clause 23 agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Regulations under section 23(6) relating to basic or higher amount]:

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Page 10, line 46, at end insert "and any such resolution of the House of Commons affecting English universities has been approved by a majority of members of Parliament representing English constituencies who are present and voting"

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: In moving Amendment No. 50, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51 and 52. These amendments are about fairness. This Bill was passed by the other place by a majority of five. The subject of top-up fees is very controversial. The majority for the Bill was achieved with the votes of Scottish Members of Parliament, whose constituencies are unaffected by the provisions in this legislation.
	It seems to me that, if a controversial policy is to be imposed which requires students and their families to take on considerable financial obligations, it is entirely reasonable that that should be subject to the approval of the voters and that those who vote for it should be accountable to their voters. Scottish MPs are not accountable for their actions in the House of Commons to the constituents who are affected by any resolution made. Therefore, the amendments make it explicit that, where measures are introduced which apply solely to English constituencies, a majority of Members of Parliament must represent English constituencies.
	I shall not take up time by straying into territory which we can cover in a later amendment—Amendment No. 57. However, I want to repeat, and shall continue to repeat for as long as it remains the position, that I think it is perfectly scandalous that we have reached this stage in our discussion of the Bill and we still do not know what the position of Scottish students coming to English universities will be or, indeed, of English students going to Scottish universities because the Scottish Executive is having one of those rather fashionable reviews. It does not seem to me to be a very difficult problem for Ministers there to resolve. But I believe that it is extremely awkward, to say the least, that we are not in a position to consider the overall effect on English institutions and on English students going to Scotland because of Ministers' failure to address these matters.
	These amendments are confined solely to the perfectly reasonable proposition that those who take these highly controversial decisions should be limited to those whose constituents are affected. I live in hope that the Minister will feel able to accept them. I beg to move.

Lord Sewel: This really is a "Forsyth special", if I may say so. At one level, it can be read simply in terms of the specific provisions of the Bill; at the other, if the noble Lord is successful, I suspect that he will try to elevate it to a constitutional convention in terms of what is necessary in English legislation and its passage through the House of Commons. I do not believe that this Bill is the vehicle through which we should discuss or decide significant constitutional issues. Therefore, I shall merely refer to the impact of the amendment in terms of the Bill itself.
	There is a tension—I put it no stronger than that—in the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. In an earlier amendment—Amendment No. 36—he sought to impose a UK responsibility on the Secretary of State for Education; now, he wishes to exclude Scottish MPs from a significant area covered by the compass of the Bill. Therefore, there is a tension there whether we are talking about Scotland, England or the UK. I am afraid that these tensions will recur in a number of pieces of legislation which come from either Westminster or the Scottish Parliament.
	I am forced into saying that what disappoints me about the amendment is that we must recognise that, although legislative competence and executive responsibility in the area of higher education has been devolved, nevertheless we cannot speak about higher education in England and Scotland as being two hermetically sealed systems. There is an interaction. It is right that Scottish MPs in Westminster should be able to have a view and a vote on what is happening because the Bill will affect the nature of Scottish higher education.
	A story that I have repeated here at an earlier stage illustrates this point as regards top-up fees. English universities will find themselves in a more advantageous position so we may well get Scottish academics being tempted to English universities where at the same time it is possible that the fee provision in Scotland will be more advantageous to students. So, English domiciled students may well rush off to Scotland. There is the wonderful possibility of one charabanc colliding with another somewhere between Edinburgh and London to the devastation of the whole of the UK higher education system.
	A point I want to make is that the Bill has indirect implications for the whole nature of higher education in Scotland. The challenge must be to Government and to the Scottish Executive to work these things out. There are mechanisms in place—there were when I left the Government—to enable these kind of issues to be discussed and resolved so that we do not have a major destabilisation of the whole UK higher education system. Matters can be considered slightly more in advance of legislation than we seem to have achieved at this stage.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: In one sense this is a wrecking amendment. That could be quite attractive, but it is more of a mischievous amendment. We have made clear that we are against all these fees. However, this is the trouble one gets with lopsided devolution. I would prefer devolution in the English regions and a degree of parity. However, that has not been the case.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that this is not the Bill to take on this issue if it is ever to be taken on. This is just not the place for it. I see the point that he makes. Real, proper, genuine devolution is the one way to solve it.
	The amendments are flawed. Noble Lords will notice that they refer to a resolution of each House of Parliament. If we are to have one rule for Members of Parliament in the other place, what about this place? How do we define a Scottish or a Welsh Peer? One thought I have had is that it might be a Peer of the Realm who spends perhaps 40 Saturday nights a year laying his or her head in Scotland or Wales—I did not say who with. We know about the London Scots and the London Welsh. If one were to consider how one would allocate English, Scottish or Welsh Peers, bearing in mind that there is a resolution to come before each House of Parliament, I would submit that the amendment is flawed. In any event, the main point is that it is totally mischievous and not well placed in the Bill.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I feel compelled to support my noble friend in these amendments. Although I understand that there are, by a long way, issues other than devolution in the Bill, nevertheless it is entirely proper that the problems of devolution should be raised every time they are relevant to a particular Bill. My noble friend's amendments underline yet again the constitutional conundrum, indeed, the black hole, of the current Scottish devolution system. Until that is filled by a general solution, the only solution available to us is to raise this every time it arises in individual pieces of legislation, as my noble friend has done.
	The general solution is to have a provision that all Bills which are specified by the Speaker of the other place as being English Bills affecting only English constituencies should be voted on only by English Members of Parliament. It is ingenious for the noble Lord to suggest that it is very difficult to see how that works in the House of Lords. I assure him that it works perfectly reasonably in the House of Commons. It may well cause difficulties for the Government but from the parliamentary point of view it is justifiable because English Members are responsible to their own English constituents. Ultimately, that is the basis on which we agree that the other place is the supreme House in this Parliament.
	I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that he was a bit unfair to my noble friend. There was an analogy with Clause 6, in respect of which he spoke about the United Kingdom approach, because of course Clause 24 and these resolutions would apply only to English universities. Therefore, my noble friend is quite right. It is not enough to say that, for example, some of the issues in these resolutions may apply to Scottish students who come to English universities. On that analogy, English MPs should be able to vote on similar issues affecting Scottish universities where English constituents go to Scottish universities. Of course they do not.
	So there is a one-sided process at the moment. The noble Baroness smiled when my noble friend suggested that she might be willing to consider the amendments. I understand perfectly well her position on that. I have to say that the more examples there are of Scottish MPs having crucial deciding votes on matters which affect only English constituencies, the more resentment there will be among English voters, as we already know from opinion polls and as I know from my former constituents.
	I give way to other noble Lords in the Chamber who know the Scottish situation much better, but the last time I looked at Scottish opinion polls on the issue, the Scottish people thought that that was a perfectly fair solution for England as well. So I think a general problem will arise. My noble friend was quite right to raise it in the context of the Bill, and I am glad he did so.

Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: Since I have not spoken before in Committee, I should declare an interest not only as someone who considers himself a Scottish Peer, but also as the head of a college at Cambridge University and Chancellor of a Scottish university. It is with those two hats on that body that I should like to speak tangentially to the amendment itself. I could not find myself supporting it for the reasons that have been stated—it is a much wider constitutional issue.
	However, I join those like the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Forsyth, who have asked the Minister to tell us as much as she possibly can, or undertake to tell us in future, what arrangements there will be for, as it were, cross-border traffic. I believe strongly that that cross-border traffic in students is enormously valuable on both sides of the Border and enormously valuable to the future of the United Kingdom.
	So anything that prevents people moving from Scotland to England or from England to Scotland to go to university seems to me to be bad news. I very much hope that at some stage the Minister will give us reassurances on what is going to be done on those points.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I very much endorse that last remark of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. The importance of cross-border traffic in students is crucial, and of course the traffic is much greater from England to Scotland than it is from Scotland to England.
	Many students who come to Scotland from the south either stay there to work or return later to work or to retire. They fall in love with Scotland and they return. Scotland needs every one of them who wants to do that. That is really very important indeed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, made the points that are the trickiest about this whole issue. I shall not reiterate them. He knows them very well because he deals with the matter all the time.
	On the amendment itself, I was grateful to my noble friend who said that it is right to raise devolution issues as they occur on Bills. I try to do that—in a very much less expert or experienced way than he has just done. Some devolution issues are minor; some are much more important. This is one of the most awkward issues that we have met.
	In fact, to someone who knows Scotland the Bill appears to ignore Scotland completely. The fact that we have devolution and that Parliament has agreed to devolution means that Parliament has a responsibility to consider the whole higher education system. Of course the responsibilities are devolved, and the Scottish Executive has an important role. It is no business of the Westminster Parliament to ignore the arrangements in Scotland and to ignore the political imperatives so far on the matter, not all of which I agree with, by any means. However, they cannot be ignored.
	It is a rather funny feeling to be someone who spends most of her Saturday nights in Scotland, to see this happening. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, what is wrong with Tuesday night? There are a lot of nights in the week.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: I was suggesting that the noble Baroness might well be here on a Tuesday night, and therefore Saturday is the one night that she might be in Scotland. She may well be here the rest of the time.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: One could, of course, travel quite a lot during the process of a Bill, if that was the rule. There are all sorts of ways of thinking about this. It is extremely important that Westminster should not ignore the situation as it is now in Scotland, and the Government so far have not come to terms with that. It is an awkward devolution issue, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Forsyth for highlighting it through these amendments.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I want to add my voice to those who say that the uncertainty over the cross-border traffic is worrying. Had that been resolved in a much clearer fashion, perhaps I could have understood the role that those representing Scottish constituencies took in the debate in the other place, but it had not happened, so they were voting blind. I was almost distracted from this point by the thought of counting where I spend my Saturday nights. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that the cross-border sleeper no longer runs on Saturday, so that is one source of uncertainty removed.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have a theory that no Scottish debate is complete without a Welsh dissenting voice, but my point is a real one. The first of these amendments deals with the basic amount and the higher amount and so on for the purposes of Section 23. I wonder how the Government are coping with the fact, revealed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, that the procedures of the National Assembly for Wales do not draw a distinction between negative and affirmative procedure? For Wales, Assembly procedures apply in respect of all increases in the higher and basic amount, whether in line with or above inflation. Furthermore, there is no bar in Wales on the higher amount being increased above the level of inflation before 2010. I am sure that the noble Baroness will recognise that that is from the committee's report. It occurs to me that it is a rather difficult point.

Lord Dearing: If I may say so, it is right that there should be an attempt to work the two out together. I was chair of the committee that tried precisely to do that. It came forward with solutions, and it produced a constitutional crisis between this House and the other House. Perhaps it is rather difficult. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that I will read with great care what he said in his remarks. I thought that he was persuading me rather strongly that there was a powerful Scottish interest in what was being done here, and that Scottish MPs should have a vote on it. I will read with care what he said.

Lord Triesman: I spend a good many Saturday nights in Scotland. I am not sure whether that qualifies me to speak in precise detail. I used to go up and down on the sleeper from time to time, but it was closed by the last Conservative government.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I do not know which particular sleeper the Minister was catching, but I do not think that it was the sleeper to Scotland. If he was referring to the West Highland sleeper, it was the first thing on my desk, and we saved it. Indeed, it continues to operate to this day.

Lord Triesman: I shall study that comment in Hansard and compare it with the timetables of any of the trains that I have tried to catch.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I think that the noble Lord can do one better. He can read the debate that took place in this House at the time, which was influential in changing the views that were expressed that the sleeper should go. It was a matter for the rail authorities, but when it was pointed out to them that their grant was up for renewal, they seemed to see the force of responding to the views that had been expressed in this House.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I apologise for raising the question of sleepers.

Lord Triesman: I shall conclude the comment by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because if he saved it, that can only be for the good.
	The noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn and Lord MacGregor, raised a number of issues which were also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, about the interplay between the arrangements in England and in Scotland. Those are issues which I have absolutely no doubt can and will be debated around a later amendment. It is right that they should be. But I take the view that the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Shutt, are absolutely right—this amendment has almost nothing to do with higher education policy. It has more to do with the fact that some people find the Scottish devolution settlement extremely hard to swallow.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Follow or swallow?

Lord Triesman: Hard to swallow. I do not say it to cause any offence, but the settlement was endorsed in a referendum by the people of Scotland and by Parliament in the Scotland Act 1998. The amendment is an attempt to shoehorn into this legislation the West Lothian question, and it is hardly appropriate in any respect. It would be a very strange thing for this House—whose Members are unelected—to tell the elected House in which the majority of elected Members form the Government of the United Kingdom, what it is they should or should not vote on. I suspect that the argument about that issue will become the much more fundamental argument, were these amendments to be carried, than any other matter.
	I make that point very straightforwardly because the nature of the constitutional clash, which we are invited to subscribe to, is not one which could commend itself at all. In January, in the other place, Members soundly rejected an Opposition Motion seeking to restrict the voting rights of Scottish Members, and this does not seem to me to be a sensible place to try to reinstil it.
	The ramifications of the noble Lord's amendments go far further than any matter relating to the provision of higher education. They go in a rather heavy way across fundamental tenets of our constitutional arrangements, and I suggest that it is those arrangements that should be considered on their own merits, or otherwise, rather than being parachuted into the Bill on the basis of a major constitutional provision.
	I read in one of this morning's newspapers that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was to fight his corner with great vigour. I congratulate him on doing so. It is always very enjoyable. But the issue of the way devolution handles the movement of students—whether into or out of Wales, or into or out of Scotland—is something that can be debated later. The issue of how the interactions work—the consultation mechanisms which have been described—can be considered in a later amendment. With the utmost seriousness, I ask your Lordships not to try and do it by producing at this moment the constitutional clash that can only sour relationships between the two Houses to no purpose.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I confess that I was opposed to the Scottish Parliament. There was an election; we lost all our seats. There was a referendum and people voted for it. I do not seek to reopen the devolution question.
	However, I do think that someone should speak for England, even if it has to be someone who spends his Saturday nights in Scotland. As I have said, this is a question of fairness. We are in a situation where Scottish MPs provided the majority that enabled the Government to impose fees of £3,000 on English students attending English universities. Scottish Members of Parliament voted for that.
	We have no idea what is to happen north of the Border, but the Minister responsible in the Scottish Executive, Mr Jim Wallace, is on record as saying that he will take whatever steps necessary to protect the interests of Scottish students and prevent what are described as "fee refugees" coming from south of the Border. The term "fee refugees" is used to refer to the sons and daughters of English parents. It has even been suggested that the Scottish Executive might decide to charge Scottish students £1,100, Italian students £1,100 and Polish students £1,100, but English students £3,000. I have to say that that seems completely inequitable and Scottish MPs provided the majority to achieve those circumstances.
	I do not seek to hold a wider constitutional debate or to change our constitution. One has only to look at this Government for an example. If you want to change the constitution, you do not do so in a Bill in this House or the House of Commons, you do it in a press release with a reshuffle or something of that kind. That is how major constitutional changes are made. You then shuffle about for a bit while working out how to move back from what was said in the press release.
	The Minister should take the amendment as it is intended. It is a helpful amendment designed to bring a degree of fairness into the way in which the English are treated. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn and Lord Sutherland and, indeed, those of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, drawing attention to the fact that it is quite unacceptable that we do not know the position north of the Border. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will forgive my little joke earlier about this being done under the "Sewel procedures". While he served on the Front Bench he went to great lengths to ensure that devolution was workable by making sure that both administrations talked to each other, and that when cross-Border issues did arise, they were resolved.
	But what is happening here is very curious. The Labour administration north of the Border does not agree with top-up fees and, because its members are what I believe are known as old-fashioned "Brownites", they are not having them. The Labour administration south of the Border has a different view. They are doing all they can to frustrate the operation of that policy, but in doing so they are damaging and introducing uncertainty to the interests of those students who, for one reason or another, want to attend a Scottish university. Perhaps they want to go to a really ancient university like St Andrews rather than one of the more modern institutions south of the Border like Oxford or Cambridge, or perhaps they are guided by some other influence. So I do not think that the Minister can get away with turning this into a broader constitutional issue. The issue here is one of fairness.
	The Minister suggested in response that, on the issue of devolution, a referendum was held and that was all right. However, the referendum was held in Scotland. The English did not get to vote on it. Most fair-minded people on both sides of the Border would say, "If it relates to our business, then it should be decided by our representatives who are accountable to us". There is nothing that a voter in England opposed to fees can do to put out of office those Scottish MPs who voted for the measure. They can refuse to vote for their English MPs, but the Scottish MPs are not accountable to the people on whom this policy is being imposed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, accused me of being mischievous. I am deeply wounded by that. If I had wanted to be mischievous, I would have pointed out that the higher education Minister who does not seem to be able to decide on his policy north of the Border is a Liberal Democrat. I would also point out that he is the architect of and has supported a policy of introducing fees which are repaid post-graduation, against which the noble Lord argues very strongly in this House. If I wanted to be mischievous I would have contrasted the Liberal Democrat position north of the Border with that south of the Border, but it is no part of my make-up to be mischievous so I shall not pursue that matter now.
	My noble friend Lord MacGregor put his finger on the wider issue that there will come a moment—the opinion polls show that this is accepted by voters both north and south of the Border—when the wider West Lothian question will have to be addressed, with Bills being certified by the Speaker and with the appropriate voting positions being in place. That has not happened because the Government, even with their huge majority, still need the votes of Scottish MPs to force through legislation that their own supporters in England could not be brought to support in the Division Lobbies.
	The Minister said that it was not any part of the House's role to give advice to another place and to spend our lives interfering in such matters. I have to say that I thought that is what we were about. I see no reason why we should not give advice to the other place that it might be more fair and equitable for the matters to be decided and determined by those Members of Parliament who have responsibility to their voters. I note that the implication of what the Minister said is that he would not be able to carry the day on that basis. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved.]
	Clause 24 agreed to.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: moved Amendment No. 54:
	After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
	"FEE REPAYMENT FOR THOSE EMPLOYED IN SPECIFIC PUBLIC SERVICE JOBS
	The Secretary of State shall make provision for the repayment from public funds of loans for qualifying fees made to qualifying persons who are subsequently employed as—
	(a) teachers in state maintained schools;
	(b) public law enforcement officers;
	(c) staff in the National Health Service;
	(d) social workers employed by local authorities;
	(e) any other public sector worker specified by regulations who is required to have a degree level qualification."

Lord Shutt of Greetland: This is a helpful and enabling amendment. We have said many times that we are against fees but if we are to have fees let us make things a little easier. Amendment No. 54 seeks to give an incentive for public service. We have already heard the Minister refer to the dire shortage of social workers. Many of your Lordships have spoken about the poor remuneration available to university teachers. The amendment gives the opportunity for those who want to dedicate part of their lives—I would suggest five to seven years—to public service to qualify for not having to repay the fees suggested in the Bill.
	That would provide an opportunity for people to give public service, perhaps by taking less remuneration, as has been hinted at in many cases, but with the proviso that they stake a certain number of years of their life to do so. That would be an incentive for public service.
	Amendment No. 55 seeks to insert a new clause. It would be an incentive for idealism, so that the repayments would not be made by those who put a significant period of time into voluntary service.
	As to the incentives available, a rich person will have the opportunity to use the gift-aid scheme for any contributions he or she may make to voluntary or charitable organisations. Someone who is quite affluent could make a gift that would enable other people to undertake voluntary service.
	For a student without resources but with time and talents, this would be an incentive to engage in something that he or she would like to do for the benefit of society as a whole. For them it would be idealism, but it may well cause them a great deal of delay in getting on to whatever ladder they eventually endeavour to climb. They would not benefit from the remunerations and increases that their fellow students had gained from going into work more immediately after obtaining their degrees. I beg to move.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I have two concerns about this well-meaning amendment, with which one has a great deal of sympathy. Of general concern is the fact that the Bill is becoming overwhelmingly complex and will be overwhelmingly complex in its application. Different universities will have different bursarial schemes and be under differential pressures from the Director of Fair Access.
	The amendment lists a number of deserving callings for which there will be fee repayment in a way which one finds admirable, but it is not entirely clear how these callings have been chosen other than in a spirit of well-meaningness. I wonder whether that is sufficiently precise. The amendment refers to "public law enforcement officers"—which I take to mean the police, although it may include others besides—but there is no reference to ambulance operatives or the fire service. More particularly, there is no mention of the charitable organisations to which the noble Lord refers in Amendment No. 55.
	Amendment No. 54 does not mention charitable organisations which are not directly publicly funded. For example, Sue Ryder Care—which has an exhibition in these premises at the moment—every year has to raise £13 million to ensure that it can provide funds for its hospices and neurological care centres. Such organisations employ some very highly qualified carers—we are talking about university graduates—but would they get their university fees repaid in the same manner as those employed in the public services? That is my first question.
	My second question is much more to the point. The noble Lord referred to university teachers, but I cannot see them listed in his exempt categories. If that is the case, and given the subject matter of the Bill, why on earth are they not listed?

Baroness Blackstone: I share some of the concerns expressed about the amendment. It seems to me that categories of staff have been left out. I know that there is the all-embracing paragraph (e), which states,
	"any other public sector worker specified by regulations",
	but, for example, why does it not mention FE lecturers, who are often paid less than schoolteachers?
	A further problem is that it is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is not sufficiently targeted on the people you may really want to target. "Staff in the NHS", for example, covers a huge category of people. I admit that many of them are not graduates—I know that we are talking only about graduates—but some graduate staff in the NHS are very highly paid and would be the last people whom we would really want to exempt from the repayment of their loans.
	The right approach is for successive governments to look at particular professions and particular areas of the public sector where there may be problems of recruitment or retention. If that were to emerge, they should then find a scheme for supporting graduates in those occupations. That is preferable to trying to legislate in 2004 for a labour market that may be very different in as little as three or four years' time and being forced to change primary legislation again. The amendment is not appropriate for legislation of this kind, although, like the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I completely understand the motivations behind it, which are perfectly good.

Lord Winston: I fully concur with my noble friend Lady Blackstone. Too many areas are left out of the amendment and it is completely uneven. With regard to the NHS, many people take degrees that might not be absolutely pertinent to the course of employment that they subsequently follow. Indeed, the head of my own department gained a first-class honours degree at Oxford in English. Would that qualify him to do medicine? I do not know. That emerges only subsequently. The amendment presents all kinds of problems. What about the Armed Forces, for example? There is a whole range of other categories where one would want to see if this kind of release from fees was equitable. As it stands, the amendment is not remotely workable.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: I share some of the concerns that other noble Lords have expressed, but we should give the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, some credit for his innovative Amendment No. 55. It certainly suggests a totally new way in which people might repay their heavy debts. I am sure that voluntary services and many charities would welcome it. It should not be dismissed quite so out of hand as it has been.
	I have one further negative concern about Amendment No. 54. Other noble Lords have spoken about the list of workers in the public service who would qualify. If any golden handshake scheme were introduced, some kind of minimum on how long one stayed would have to be imposed. If people popped into the public services for a year, would the whole of their fees be written off? I am sure that the noble Lord will be the first to say that the idea needs a great deal more detail to make it a viable proposition. However, the concept of golden handshakes in specific occupations, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has said, could vary from time to time according to where there are particular shortages, has been employed in Sweden with some success. Again, it should not be dismissed out of hand.

Baroness Seccombe: As I understand it, Amendment No. 54 would exempt those working in public service jobs where relatively low pay makes recruitment difficult due to the inability to repay fees. Amendment No. 55 would encourage young people to undertake voluntary service.
	We strongly support the idea of the "public good" and put on record our unwavering admiration for those who work in occupations that achieve this. We also recognise the problems of pay within the sectors outlined in the amendment. However, I cannot agree that public good can be achieved only by those working, for example, in the NHS. The practice of medicine is a public good wherever one works. The amendment discriminates against a wide range of people and professions. It also creates divisions within professions. Is it also right or fair to suggest that those who carry out jobs that provide a public good, but did not require a degree course to do so, should be treated differently from those who had to obtain a degree in order to qualify? Public good is public good, regardless of whether it has a degree course to back it up.
	Turing to the drafting of the amendment, can the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp explain what paragraph (c) covers? Does "staff in the NHS" cover the cooks and cleaners as well as the nurses, doctors and ambulance drivers? With regard to paragraph (a) and the discussion on my noble friend Lord Renfrew's amendment, perhaps she could have considered—as he so rightly said—including academics in this new clause.
	I now turn briefly to Amendment No. 55. Here, too, I commend all those who work in, or offer their services to, the voluntary sector. We recognise the invaluable work that is done in so many different ways, and we are mindful that there are never enough volunteers. As we have already debated, the issue of deferred placements due to gap years does give the opportunity for voluntary work, providing benefits for everyone. It can also be an invaluable life-forming experience. However, I do not realistically think that student loans could be paid off in such a way. I have many concerns with this amendment. What type of volunteer work would be included? Does interning for an MP count, as I understand that is often voluntary? Would the volunteer work have to be based in this country? If not, how can we guarantee that policing of the system ensures the necessary amount of work is done? Talking of the amount of work, how would volunteering be measured—by the number of hours worked on a principle as if they were receiving pay, or perhaps in the public good achieved?
	I also ask the noble Baroness how she sees these amendments working with EU students and the financial support arrangements they would be allowed. Does she intend them to be covered by these clauses? We sympathise with the sentiment and the reason driving these new clauses, but do not see how they would be fair or how they would work in practice.

Lord Triesman: I think these are really interesting amendments, and I am grateful that they have been introduced into the debate. I share the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew's view of that. The motivation for the amendments is commendable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, they are innovative as well, and deserve proper attention for that reason as much any.
	We are a government committed to the recruitment and retention of high-quality staff in all our public services and to supporting the voluntary sector. However, I do not think it is right to try to regulate in this way—it is unnecessary, nor is it the best way to address these extremely important issues.
	Amendment No. 54 seeks to encourage and safeguard applications to various public sector professions, which are listed in the amendment. The Government are absolutely committed to attracting the very best people to work in the public sector. I take the point that expertise in many of these disciplines is not confined to the public sector either. That is why we have already put many measures in place in relation to some of the groups that are mentioned in the amendment. I will not go through them all in detail because my noble friend Lady Ashton did so in an earlier phase of our debates this afternoon. Just to enumerate them, the provisions that she described for the recruitment of teachers are a very good example—in the encouragement of the PGCE and in the arrangements that made for priority subjects: maths, science, modern languages, technology and English.
	The point is that these are appropriately tailored measures. That is what makes them work. There are more teachers with qualified teacher status in our schools now than at any time since 1984, and this has made a contribution to it. However, we need to keep what we do for priority subjects under review as well. As the point has been made, what are priorities today may well not turn out to be the priorities of tomorrow. There will be other priorities as time goes by—the demand for teachers will increase in some subjects and probably decline in others. It is essential that we tailor what we do to the prevailing conditions.
	I fear that this amendment would unduly tie our hands. It assumes that there is one and only one answer—although it may be a very interesting and good answer at the moment—and that it will always be the true answer. Under this amendment, we would have to follow the write-off policy, even if other incentives were to prove more effective.
	I would like to look briefly at some of the incentives provided by other government departments for key public sector workers. Nurses, as well as midwives and the allied health professions, do not pay tuition fees. Instead, the NHS contracts directly with the higher education providers for provision of their training. The consultation document recently issued by the Department of Health proposes that future contracts for learning and development for those groups should prohibit the charging of variable fees. My noble friend Lady Ashton dealt with medical students and the very specific arrangements there; that does not need to be repeated.
	The Department of Health is doing all that now. As for the future, we do not anticipate any significant effect on applications to medical courses, because some of those steps have been taken. As we heard earlier, applications to medical schools are up and buoyant. The Department of Health will continue to monitor demand for, and take-up of, places on health professional courses including medicine after the introduction of variable fees in 2006–07, and will consider measures to safeguard the supply of students on health professional courses once the full implications of the introduction of variable tuition fees can be assessed.
	It is worth noting that students taking social work qualifications are often funded to do so by their employers. The Department of Health has made funding available to employers towards the support of social work students. Where employer support is not available, the Department of Health makes available bursaries as an additional incentive to train in social work. The bursary currently includes the student's full liability for tuition fees. The department is also reviewing the impact of variable fees on any support arrangements.
	On the subject of law enforcement officers, I understand that there are no national schemes in place to recruit graduates specifically into the police force. However, I am aware of the high-potential development scheme, which was launched in April 2002. The HPD is an individually tailored career-development programme designed to attract the future high-calibre leaders of the police service whom we all want. Applications are invited from both graduates and non-graduates who feel that they have the potential to reach senior positions in the service. In fact, 67 per cent of those who achieved the standard to gain a place on the scheme were graduates on application.
	The real point about all the examples is that it must be right for employers—both private and public—to look at the impact of the proposals on their labour markets, and to decide themselves what steps are necessary to recruit and retain. They will no doubt continually review and update that, knowing their employment requirements in a way at which we can only guess in advance. Across the whole public sector, government departments seek to ensure that the new arrangements for student funding do not discourage graduates from all backgrounds entering training for, or taking jobs in, the public sector.
	We commented earlier on the inquiry being conducted by Sir Alan Langlands about gateways into the professions.

Lord Eatwell: Given the welcome that the Minister gave to the spirit of the amendments, would the Government wish to take up the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone that there be some form of generic amendment to the Bill? By that, I mean an amendment that would allow the Government from time to time to specify such professions as they wished without having, as the Minister put it, their hands tied by a specific list. Will the Government bring forward such an amendment, and if not, why not?

Lord Triesman: We do not need to do that. All the provisions necessary to provide incentives—I have given a significant list of them—are already available and can be introduced. If employers in the public or private sector—I do not make any distinction in this sense—wish to do so, they can do so. The powers already exist, and we do not need to take further steps.
	Amendment No. 55 deals with the repayment of student loans by voluntary service. Again, I fully understand that this is being aimed at encouraging graduates into this area. It is indeed the case that all of us, like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, wish to encourage as much voluntary work and voluntary commitment as we can in our society.
	The Government have a number of initiatives to encourage volunteering, for example, the Millennium Volunteers programme which encourages and enables young people up to age 24 to volunteer in areas that interest them. We also have the Higher Education Active Community Fund which enables the development of new volunteering opportunities, allowing both staff and students to increase significantly their involvement in the community.
	The Russell commission has been set up by the Chancellor to make recommendations on a national youth volunteering strategy, for 16 to 25 year-olds. The Department for Education and Skills is involved in this, and I am sure that noble Lords will share my interest in seeing the outcome of the work of that commission. These are all important steps in encouraging people to volunteer their time, services and skills for the benefit of the broader community.
	We are also aware that those who choose to work in the voluntary sector may be on low pay or no pay at all for some or all of the time. That is the reason that I commend to your Lordships the propositions about the income thresholds, and the other arrangements in this legislation, which mean that people whose pay is either small or non-existent are not penalised or disincentivised.
	That means that an individual who wants to dedicate himself to voluntary service need not worry that their student loan is going to become in any way unmanageable. It will simply retain its value in real terms and while it might prolong the time to repay, there is the benefit of knowing that the debt will be cancelled in any event after 25 years.
	None the less, should a time come when it was felt necessary to implement a policy of repaying some or all of the student loans of those who engage in voluntary service, we already have the necessary powers to do so in Section 186 of the Education Act. I hope that noble Lords will look at that in considering the benefits of the volunteering route, which is one of the admirable features of the amendment.
	We want a flexible system, and we want it to be able to adapt. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, have made that point. In summary, we are considering the impact on the professions, and with that in mind I hope that the amendments proposed for fee repayment for those employed in specific public-service jobs will be accepted as being unnecessarily restrictive. I hope that the argument about waiving repayment in respect of voluntary service proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is also answered by my comments. On those grounds I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: I thank the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this amendment. I think, in retrospect, it is an occasion when I ought to have said that this is a probing amendment. Many of the points that have been raised—on teachers in state-maintained schools, on staff in the National Health Service (and which staff did we have in mind?)—show that it is a probing amendment.
	The principle that we are trying to get over is that there ought to be, within the Bill, the opportunity for an incentive that I would describe as a fee-repayment exemption. I believe if something like this is not put into the Bill, that will not be there.
	The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred to the complexity of the Bill. I cannot help that: the Bill is complex—and amendments may make it more complex—but that is the way of things, and at least that is one thing not at my door. Part of the concern has clearly been about public service, and that there are not sufficient people dedicating themselves to that. Therefore a major element is to give an incentive to people to dedicate themselves to public service.
	I hear what Members of the Committee and the Minister say and clearly we will think about it. However, if there is a feeling within this House that in the Bill there ought to be an opportunity for fee-repayment exemption as an incentive, I hope that we can return to the matter on another occasion.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I also asked him to indicate whether it was an oversight on his part and that of his noble friend that he did not include provision for the university teaching profession among those who would have their fees exempted in this admirable manner.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: I apologise. Happily, there is one of those wonderful clauses—paragraph (e)—which embraces all. It states:
	"any other public sector worker specified by regulations".
	That provides the opportunity to include those who are felt to be in a shortage area, as has been mentioned.
	This is a probing amendment and if there is a specific issue that Members want to talk about later, that can be done.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I thank the noble Lord again for giving way. As we are probing, does the noble Lord feel that all university and academic personnel are to be regarded as public service workers?

Lord Shutt of Greetland: I take the view that teaching in a university is a public service. It is not included as specifically, but there is no reason why it should not be embraced in paragraph (e). I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
	Clause 25 agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale: moved Amendment No. 56:
	After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
	"Student fees and financial support for students as undertaken by the National Assembly of Wales
	(1) This section applies to any function in relation to student fees or financial support for students that has been transferred to the Assembly by—
	(a) an Order in Council under section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38) (transfer of Ministerial functions),
	(b) this Act, or
	(c) any other enactment.
	(2) In exercising the functions to which this section applies, the Assembly must secure that—
	(a) no relevant institution charges different qualifying fees in respect of a qualifying course on the basis of the relevant area in which a student is normally resident; and
	(b) eligibility for any grant, loan or bursary is not determined on the basis of the relevant area in which a student is normally resident.
	(3) In this section— "normally resident", in relation to a student, means resident at times when not resident at the relevant institution where he is undertaking a course; "qualifying course" has the same meaning as in section 26; "qualifying fees" has the same meaning as in section 26; "relevant area" means— (a) England;
	(b) Northern Ireland;
	(c) Scotland; and
	(d) Wales; "relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 25."

Lord Skelmersdale: During the course of the day, we have heard an awful lot about Scotland and the cross-Border issues which, as far as we can see, will occur as a result of the Bill, but we have heard less about the situation in Wales. This amendment seeks to address that. It tries to ensure that although the powers relating to student fees and financial support have been transferred to the Welsh Assembly, they cannot be used to discriminate against individuals because they come from a different area of the country; for example, Dorset, Shropshire or Northern Ireland. The amendment also aims to prevent discrimination in terms of charging different fees or the withholding of grants, loans or bursaries.
	The Welsh Assembly has already decided that top-up fees will not be introduced until at least—I emphasise at least—2007. Thus it will be one year or possibly more by the time it has legislated for fees for students in the Principality. Its final decision will be informed by an independent review which is to be undertaken by Professor Rees. I understand that his report is due to be completed by May this year, with an interim report on variable fees in February next year. Will the Minister explain how this report can take full account of the impact of tuition fees when they will not even have come into force here? It is very odd.
	I said that the amendment was specifically about Wales and I am mindful of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy about paragraph 7 of the report of your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I will not repeat what he said and I will not read out what it said. The main concern relates to the powers devolved under Clause 41 and the various conditions set out by Sections 22(2) and (3) of the 1998 Act. I have no problem with the position on bankruptcy, for example, but I want to ask whether, in the case of student loans and the subsidy for such loans, the Minister can outline the Assembly's position in relation to their provision, especially the relationship of decisions taken about the provision of loan allocations to the overall student loan book. It appears that a decision about loan levels in Wales could have an impact different from the effect of decisions taken about different amounts in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the Assembly, for example, be able to provide an extra £1,000 a year student loan through the regional allocation budget structure? Would not that have a direct impact on the Treasury?
	Similarly, how will the Government deal with the possible effects of the Assembly deciding to charge English-based students higher fees than they do Welsh-based students? I know that the Minister has had a go at the subject in the context of our discussions on Scotland, but it is still unclear to me how it will work. As currently proposed, the system is very unequal.
	Although English universities will be able to levy top-up fees, the Welsh ones will not. They are therefore naturally concerned that their recruitment and investment as well as the quality of education that they can provide may be disadvantaged. Surely the introduction of fees in England in 2006 will make it cheaper to go to Wales, creating a rush of applications and a knock-on financial burden. The financial package that the Bill provides is to help compensate for the introduction of fees to those from less well-off families. That package is balanced by the introduction of the access regulator, of whom, I am afraid, there will be more on Monday. However, in response to a Written Question in the other place, the Minister said:
	"The Welsh Assembly has said that it will not introduce variable fees during the lifetime of the second Assembly, therefore Welsh Higher Education Institutions will not need to provide access bursaries on similar terms to those being provided in England".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/04; col. 30W.]
	Will not need to. That does not mean that they will not.
	Although the core of the student support package is in place, if institutions do not need to provide access bursaries on similar terms to those in England, will the access regulator have a remit in 2006, or will it be introduced only when the Assembly introduces bursaries and fees? I have heard no words uttered in answer to that question in this Chamber or elsewhere.
	The Bill contains many issues of great concern regarding the relationship of Wales. The amendment aims to address a couple of those: namely, that the Assembly cannot use its powers to discriminate against individuals because they come from outside Wales; nor can it charge different fees or withhold grants, loans or bursaries. I beg to move.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I referred to this new clause and its aim of preventing discrimination between students during the first Committee sitting earlier this week, when I fired what some have called a fusillade at the entire Bill. In introducing the new clause, my noble friend has covered many of the implications of the Welsh Assembly Government being totally out of step, as far as I can make out, with the Government in Whitehall, and of the higher education sector in Wales being out of step with that in England.
	My first question is: how has this situation come about? We are assured from time to time that there are "constant discussions"—we have heard the phrase today—between the Labour Government in Whitehall and the Labour Assembly Government in Cardiff. None the less, the policies being pursued appear totally different. So, I simply ask, "What has happened?". I wish I could have been a fly on the wall during some of those discussions.
	Reading the record of the plenary debate of the Assembly does not enlighten us, except that we have a clear statement of the Assembly Government's policy, which is to conduct their own review of higher education funding, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, and delay the introduction of top-up fees until at least 2007. Will the Welsh Assembly Government introduce them even then?
	Meanwhile, what will be the consequences of the differences between Wales and England on the campuses? Can we have a clear statement from the noble Baroness on the position of students— English-domiciled and Welsh domiciled—at Welsh universities? Will English students in Wales receive grants in 2006, even though they will not have to pay fees? I can hardly believe that. What can we make of the Assembly's intention with regard to Welsh students, as described in the Explanatory Notes, which I quoted on Monday:
	"The Assembly intends in practice to make regulations affecting students who have a prescribed connection with Wales when they start their course, regardless of the location of the institution at which they are studying and of their place of residence after graduation"?
	We know the effect of the Bill on the University of Wales. It was described in a report to the university court on 16 April:
	"Under the terms of the Bill, which also provides for student funding powers to be devolved to Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government will not be bound to implement the provision. It has in any case given an undertaking that variable fees will not be introduced in Wales at least until 2007. If variable fees are not introduced in Wales, unless an alternative stream of additional funding is provided to Welsh higher education institutions, those institutions will be financially disadvantaged compared with their counterparts in England".
	That kind of disadvantage is a form of discrimination.
	My final question is whether an alternative stream will be provided, if the Assembly does not allow variable fees. If not, that will inevitably lead to a lower standard of higher education in Wales than in England. I repeat the point that I made about the comment—it is not exactly a recommendation—made by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I am sure that the Government have taken it on board. They must have a reaction to it.
	On Monday, I said, in reply to an intervention by my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking that I was in favour of variable fees. I am—in the context of Wales and if variable fees are to operate in England. However, I qualify that answer by saying simply that, if my noble friend and our party were again in power, we would not start from here.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: Originally, the amendment was linked to the following one. I understand that it is appropriate that the amendment relating to Wales should be debated separately.
	This amendment and the next one are worth debating because we ought to flush out the terms of trade. That is the important thing. It occurs to me that if you have devolution, you have devolution. That means that different decisions can be made, and so on. However, it is possible for Ministers to speak to one another. It is possible for Welsh and Scottish Ministers to speak to other Ministers. It is also very important to understand the effect that different legislation will have.
	I can see the situation arising in which the residents of England are under a certain funding regime, as are the residents of Scotland and the residents of Wales. But if the funding regime is higher education institution-based, that may have implications in student flow. I should have thought that it would be improper if, for example, the student flow was such that a great number of students from England were desperate to go to Scottish universities and, because of the funding regime, people who lived in Scotland could not go to those universities because the universities were taking students on their merits.
	I think that this is an area where clarification is needed, and I hope that we can get that clarification. That applies to this amendment as it does to the next one, and there is no point in my standing up to say that twice.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that there is a need to be absolutely clear. I was intending to say at the start of my remarks that I have asked officials to put together a note on the current system, on the implications for England and Scotland in particular, and on what would happen under the new system. If your Lordships wish me to do so, I shall circulate that note to all noble Lords and that will also help our future deliberations.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Does the noble Baroness realise that this is a Welsh amendment? There is equal confusion in relation to Wales, and so why has she excluded Wales?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He pre-empted me in that I was about to say that I also intend to do the same in relation to Wales. I was proposing to say something about our position vis-a-vis Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as what I might describe as a precursor to the next two amendments. I believe that that will help noble Lords. I am very conscious that many noble Lords who would normally speak in these debates are not here. Therefore, I shall try not to take up the time of the Committee, but I think that this is an important issue and I am sure that noble Lords will benefit from being able to read the note.
	As noble Lords have indicated, those involved in the devolved administrations meet regularly with people in my department to discuss the issue of student support across borders. Of course, Ministers also meet regularly. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows from our correspondence, as well as from my comments at Second Reading, the Secretary of State and the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Jim Wallace, who has education responsibilities, have met. If the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, were here, I would say to her that Second Reading was not the first occasion on which they met; they meet regularly. As noble Lords know, each of the separate administrations is looking at the direction in which it will take its student support plans from 2006–07 in the light of the changes that we are proposing.
	In relation to Wales, noble Lords have referred to the review being conducted by Professor Teresa Rees, which will be concluded in April 2005. In the interim, the Assembly has concluded that it will continue with the current fixed fee for the lifetime of the Assembly. In relation to 2006–07, the Assembly has also said that Welsh domiciled students will not be disadvantaged by the devolution of funding powers. It has confirmed that that means that Welsh students will have access to loans, fees and maintenance grants in the same way as English students do. That applies wherever the students study in the UK.
	I take this opportunity to say that English students in Wales will receive the same support package as in England: a loan to cover their fees and the same grant and loan support for living costs. As noble Lords already know, the Scottish Executive is considering the options following the outcome of the third phase of its higher education review, and will be announcing the conclusions shortly. Student support is the responsibility of Scottish Ministers, and their announcement will cover the support package that we shall be making available for Scottish students who study both in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.
	I want to make clear to noble Lords that it is our intention to offer English students studying in Scotland the same package as English students studying in England: a loan to cover their fees and the same grant and loans for living costs. We shall confirm that position formally in the light of the decisions made by the Scottish Executive.
	Noble Lords will know that Northern Ireland is currently consulting on proposals to introduce variable fees and fee deferrals. I can confirm that it is our intention, subject to the outcome of that consultation, to offer English students studying in Northern Ireland the same package as English students studying in England: a loan to cover their fees and the same grant and loans for living costs. Again, we shall confirm that formally when the Northern Ireland announcements are made later this year. I hope that is helpful as regards English students.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: What will be the consequence of the regime to which the Minister referred? Will there not be a tremendous influx of English students into both Scotland and Wales, because the courses will be cheaper?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We are still waiting for decisions to be made. I do not think at this point that I can comment on that. Debate and discussions are ongoing. Our position is clear. It is crucial that we are clear about what happens to English students studying anywhere in the UK. However, we are waiting for decisions from the Scottish Executive on the level of fee that it will set for English and, indeed, Scottish students. I shall refer to the position on the Welsh Assembly when I turn specifically to the amendment. That is the position. We may not be where the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, would wish us to be, but that is the position.
	It is important, as I say, that I am clear about the position for English students. I believe that they will make their decision based on a range of factors, not only the cost of courses. That cost will be variable across England. There may be courses that are cheaper than those in Scotland or Wales, or those that are more expensive. I believe that students will make their decisions for a range of reasons based on a range of factors and that that will continue to be the case.
	I turn specifically to the amendment. Noble Lords have made clear what they intend; that is, at one level to safeguard the principles of equity of treatment and equality of opportunity if a system of variable fees was introduced in Wales and, indeed, in the absence of such a system. I can support that aim, but I would not agree with the method of achieving it.
	In transferring functions to Wales, as noble Lords will know, we are following the same pattern of delegation already established in England and Northern Ireland. The National Assembly already has responsibility for higher education provision in Wales and we have agreed to transfer responsibility to the National Assembly for providing financial support to residents of Wales undertaking higher education.
	The effect of the amendment is to require that in addition the National Assembly should take responsibility for providing financial assistance to UK nationals who are not ordinarily resident in Wales who choose to study there. As 40 per cent of people who undertake higher education in Wales are from other parts of the United Kingdom, we believe that that would represent a very significant financial burden on the Assembly.
	I would ask noble Lords to reflect for a moment on the practicalities of the amendment. We believe that it would add an additional layer of complexity, which is unnecessary and unwanted. Students would have to understand all the different systems of financial support before making their decision on where to study.
	As noble Lords know, at present the Assembly can impose a condition on HEFCW to ensure that fees charged by institutions are equal to the amount prescribed in the main student support regulations. They are not set at different levels for different individuals or classes of individuals from the UK. We recognise that it is in the interests of the institutions to attract the most talented students wherever they come from and we would not wish them to jeopardise that.
	I was much taken by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in his wide-ranging response on Monday. I have had my own discussions on that. I wanted to be sure that I had covered all the points raised by the noble Lord from that discussion. We can both read Hansard and check that we have got to the point that we need to in terms of understanding so that I can continue with other issues.
	As I said, the National Assembly made clear that it will not introduce variable fees during the lifetime of the second Assembly, which in effect means before 2007–08 at the earliest. Subject to the passage of the Bill, as the noble Lord knows and as we have already indicated, Professor Teresa Rees will undertake the review to provide advice on how the Assembly might best use its devolved student support powers and on the key question of the introduction of variable fees.
	In the mean time the Assembly has made clear that as a consequence of the introduction of the new fee and student support arrangements in England its policy intention is that students ordinarily resident in Wales, wherever they study, should benefit from fee deferral through loans for fees and from the other enhanced benefits associated with the Bill. That includes the write-off after 25 years.
	The Assembly's intention is to ensure that students ordinarily resident in Wales receive no less generous a package of student support under devolved arrangements than they would have under schemes administered and funded by the Department for Education and Skills. Noble Lords will agree that that is a reasonable and honourable position for the Assembly to take while they debate the wider questions of variable fees and student support arrangements in Wales.
	To be clear, it is intended that the National Assembly for Wales will use its powers under Clauses 48(6) and 43(4) to commence Clause 40(2) and the repeal in Schedule 7 to the Bill of Section 26(5) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 in time for the 2006–07 academic year. For the transitional period before full repeal of the fixed fee system, the intention is not to commence the repeal of the remaining provisions of Section 26. The effect would be to enable the Assembly to break the current link between the level at which fees can be set by institutions and the existence of a fee remission grant with which to offset those fees. By so doing, the Assembly will be able to offer students ordinarily resident in Wales the same flexibility in student support as offered to students ordinarily resident in England, while at the same time meeting its commitment that variable fees will not be introduced in the lifetime of the Assembly.
	I am sorry to have to read all that out, but it is important to get this clear so that noble Lords can study it. In practical terms, this means that for the academic year 2006–07 the Assembly will set a fixed fee for higher education courses in Wales. It will offer maintenance grants of up to £2,700—absorbing the Assembly's existing learning grant—and loans for fees to students ordinarily resident in Wales wherever they study.
	Perhaps I have spoken too quickly this evening, but when noble Lords have had an opportunity to reflect on my words I hope that they, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Skelmersdale, will see that that reflects the position appropriately and will feel that I have covered the points of concern to them. Always with the proviso that I am more than willing to debate the issues, in Committee or elsewhere, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale: As this short debate has continued, a half-remembered quotation from Cicero came into my mind—I tried to be brief; I hope I wasn't obscure! My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy brought that half-remembered quote to my mind. He put the padding on what I said as briefly as I could.
	The response from the noble Baroness was quite simply astounding. I will have to read very carefully, with a cold, wet towel around my head, especially her last couple of paragraphs—at least I suspect that they were the last couple of paragraphs. Also, I look forward enormously to what she calls,
	"a note on the current position of financing students in Scotland and Wales".
	I wrote down her words, I hope exactly. What on earth does she mean by "current" because this Bill is about the future, not the current situation?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sorry. I meant the current and the future in order for noble Lords to make the comparison.

Lord Skelmersdale: Well, I wonder how different it is going to be from—

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I wonder if in the spirit of the extraordinary comprehensiveness of the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, the noble Lord could give us the Cicero quote in its original language.

Lord Skelmersdale: I will have to check the accuracy and the translation, both of which are a little hazy in my mind—especially as I only ever did one term of Greek at school! However, that was what is known as "a red herring".
	As I said, I am looking forward to this comparative note about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that we can really get to the bottom of it. I was saying that I hope to goodness the note does not contradict anything that the noble Baroness has just said, which I also look forward enormously to reading.
	Just by way of a parting shot, when the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, mentioned terms of trade, he seemed to provide a rather different Liberal Democrat policy from that which his noble friend Lady Sharp enunciated earlier today. Again, perhaps I had better compare those two. I will be doing a lot of comparison over the weekend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: moved Amendment No. 57:
	After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
	"Student fees and financial support for students as undertaken by the Scottish Executive
	(1) This section applies to any function in relation to student fees or financial support for students that has been transferred to the Scottish Executive by—
	(a) the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46),
	(b) this Act, or
	(c) any other enactment.
	(2) In exercising the functions to which this section applies the Scottish Executive must secure that—
	(a) no relevant institution charges different qualifying fees in respect of a qualifying course on the basis of the relevant area in which a student is normally resident; and
	(b) eligibility for any grant, loan or bursary is not determined on the basis of the relevant area in which a student is normally resident.
	(3) In this section— "normally resident", in relation to a student, means resident at times when not resident at the relevant institution where he is undertaking a course; "qualifying course" has the same meaning as in section 26; "qualifying fees" has the same meaning as in section 26; "relevant area" means—
	(a) England;
	(b) Northern Ireland;
	(c) Scotland; and
	(d) Wales; "relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 25."

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I sense that your Lordships do not want a long exposition on the cross-border issues north and south of the border. We have been round this course a number of times, and many of the arguments have been put. I was struck in the previous debate that the Minister indicated that we could expect an announcement from the Scottish Executive in respect of the position of Scottish students "shortly". I do not know, panning back in my mind through the various episodes of "Yes, Minister" that I have watched on television, what "shortly" means. Does it mean next week, or in the next few days? Amendment No. 57—with which I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 67 and 112—would effectively prevent the Bill commencing, should it pass through its processes in this House and the other place, without those matters being resolved.
	If the noble Baroness is correct that it will be shortly, the amendment will be unnecessary. It might be appropriate to withdraw the amendment at this stage, so that we can return to consider it at a later date. I take it that that later date will be longer away than shortly, in which case it will not be necessary for me to move it again. I hope that the Minister will convey to her colleagues in the Scottish Executive the strength of feeling that is being expressed on all sides of the House about the need—to take the rather good phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt—to know the terms of trade and know them shortly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 26 agreed to.

Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Royal Assent

Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004,
	Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004,
	Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
	Child Trust Funds Act 2004,
	London Local Authorities Act 2004.

Child Trust Funds Bill

Bill returned earlier from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.